`Filed: July 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., MYLAN INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`
` SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`__________________
`
`RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Procedural History ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Governing Rules and PTAB Guidance ............................................................ 4
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Confidential Information ...................................................... 6
`
`V. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information .................. 6
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s NDA and Related Portions of Patent Owner’s
`Response, the Williams, Trattler, and Jarosz Declarations and
`the Hoffman Transcript Should Be Sealed ............................................ 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The NDA Contains Patent Owner’s Highly Sensitive,
`Confidential Information ............................................................ 7
`
`Good Cause Exists to Seal the NDA Exhibits as
`“CONFIDENTIAL” Under the Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order .......................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`Third Party BioScience’s Confidential Testing Reports and
`Materials Documenting Proprietary Testing Methods and the
`Related Paulson Declaration Should Be Sealed .................................... 9
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`BOARD DECISIONS
`Sandoz, Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00005, Paper 21 .................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 .............................................................................................. 5, 7, 9
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .......................................................... 5, 8, 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Through this Renewed Motion to Seal, Patent Owner requests that the
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`following exhibits be sealed: (1) excerpts of Patent Owner’s New Drug
`
`Application (“NDA”) (Exs. 2096, 2102, 2103, 2110); and (2) confidential testing
`
`reports and materials documenting the proprietary testing methods of a third-party
`
`test company (Exs. 2249-2263). Patent Owner also requests that portions of its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), expert declarations Exs. 2082 (Williams),
`
`2116 (Trattler), and 2130 (Jarosz), and the transcript of testimony Ex. 2273
`
`(Hoffman) citing or substantially describing the above categories of documents be
`
`sealed. To the best of Patent Owner’s knowledge, the Patent Owner certifies that
`
`the information identified as confidential in this motion has not been published or
`
`otherwise made public. Petitioner Lupin does not oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Patent Owner has filed multiple Motions to Seal. On December 28, 2015,
`
`Patent Owner filed Motion to Seal and Motion to Enter Stipulated Protective Order
`
`(Paper 36), requesting that certain exhibits and pleadings be sealed, specifically:
`
`Exs. 2096, 2102, 2103, 2110 (related to Patent Owner’s NDA), Ex. 2082
`
`(Petitioner’s ANDA); Exs. 2220 and 2226 (Patent Owner’s presentations); Ex.
`
`2114 (transcript of expert testimony); portions of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper
`
`34); and Exs. 2082, 2105, 2116, 2130 (declarations of various experts citing or
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`substantially describing the categories of documents sought to be sealed). On
`
`March 31, 2016 , Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 67) requesting that
`
`transcripts of expert testimony (Ex. 2272 and 2273), Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observation Regarding Cross-Examination (Paper 64), be filed under seal. On
`
`April 6, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 71) requesting that Exs.
`
`2249-2263 (testing reports and materials from third-party test companies, and
`
`related supplemental expert reports citing same) be filed under seal.
`
`On June 21, 2016, the Board denied the parties request to enter the
`
`Stipulated Protective Order (Paper 85) and denied all pending requests to seal
`
`exhibits and pleadings without prejudice (Papers 85, 89). The parties met and
`
`conferred and agreed that in light of the Board’s orders and the completion of
`
`discovery, the “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL-BOARD’S EYES ONLY”
`
`and “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL-FED R. EVID 615” designations are
`
`no longer applicable to this proceeding. As a result, the parties agreed that the
`
`Default Protective Order should govern in this case. Accordingly, in this Motion,
`
`Patent Owner will not be seeking to seal portions of: Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 33), Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations (Paper 58); Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to Petition (Ex. 2271); and of the declarations
`
`or testimony of Dr. Paul Laskar (Ex. 2114 and Ex. 2272), Robert O. Williams (Ex.
`
`2082), Stephen G. Davies (Ex. 2105) or Ivan Hoffman (Ex. 2273) that were
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`previously marked as Confidential under FRE 615. Patent Owner will be refiling
`
`these exhibits without the “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL-FED R. EVID
`
`615” marking.
`
`In this Motion, Patent Owner will not be seeking to seal portions of Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 33), Petitioner’s Reply to Patent’s Owner’s Response to
`
`Petition (Ex. 2271), Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations (Paper 64) and of the
`
`declarations or testimony of Dr. Paul Laskar (Exs. 2114 and 2272), Ivan Hoffman
`
`(Ex. 2273), Robert O. Williams (Ex. 2082), and Stephen G. Davies (Ex. 2105) that
`
`were previously marked as Confidential under FRE 615. Patent Owner will be
`
`refiling these exhibits without the “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL-FED R.
`
`EVID 615” marking.
`
`As to the research and development presentations (Exs. 2220 and 2226), the
`
`Board noted that, in its view, the Patent Owner had “not identified what portions of
`
`the Patent Owner’s Response contain the asserted confidential material.” (Paper
`
`85 at 7.) Patent Owner did not request that any portions of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response be sealed, because the information from Exs. 2220 and 2226 was not
`
`directly quoted in the Patent Owner’s Response. Nonetheless, Patent Owner’s
`
`Response relied on the testimony of Dr. Jarosz (Ex. 2130) regarding the benefits of
`
`the invention (Paper 33 at 59 (citing Ex. 2130 at ¶¶ 85, 135)) and Dr. Jarosz
`
`supported his testimony with citations to Patent Owner’s research and development
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`presentations (see e.g., Ex. 2130 at ¶ 95 (citing Ex. 2220), Ex. 2130 at ¶¶ 82, 96
`
`(citing Ex. 2226)). Thus Patent Owner’s original request was not deficient in this
`
`regard. Upon further consideration, Patent Owner will not request that Exs. 2220
`
`or 2226 be sealed. Public versions of Exs. 2220 and 2226 will be filed.
`
`As to the third-party confidential materials, in its Decision, the Board stated:
`
`“Patent Owner has neither demonstrated that [Exhibits 2249-2263] contain
`
`proprietary information nor established its standing to assert the ‘interest’ of a non-
`
`party third party in this proceeding.” Paper 88 at 3.1 Accordingly, as explained
`
`below, BioScience prepared a declaration authorizing Patent Owner to request that
`
`these exhibits be filed under seal and providing additional information supporting
`
`Patent Owner’s request. Upon further consideration, Patent Owner will not request
`
`that Exs. 2255, 2256, or 2257 be sealed. A public version of these exhibits will be
`
`filed.
`
`III. Governing Rules and PTAB Guidance
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in an
`
`inter partes review are open and available for access by the public but a party may
`
`1 On July 8, the Board authorized BioScience to submit a declaration authorizing
`
`Senju to seek protection of BioScience’s proprietary information on BioScience’s
`
`behalf and explaining what information contained in Exhibits 2249-2263 is
`
`proprietary and why. (Ex. 2278).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`file a concurrent motion to seal and the information at issue is sealed pending the
`
`outcome of the motion. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. It is, however, only
`
`“confidential information” that is protected from disclosure. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(7)(“The Director shall prescribe regulations -- . . . providing for protective
`
`orders governing the exchange and submission of confidential information”). In
`
`that regard, the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012) provides:
`
`The rules aim to strike a balance between the public’s
`interest in maintaining a complete and understandable
`file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly
`sensitive information.
`
`* * *
`
`Confidential Information: The rules identify confidential
`information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for
`protective orders for trade secret or other confidential
`research, development, or commercial information.
`§ 42.54.
`
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause,” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54, and the moving party has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to
`
`the requested relief, 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`Identification of Confidential Information
`
`In this Second Motion to Seal, Patent Owner requests that two categories of
`
`exhibits be sealed as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” under the Default
`
`Protective Order. First, Patent Owner requests that excerpts of Patent Owner’s
`
`NDA (Exs. 2096, 2102, 2103, and 2110) be sealed.2 As noted by the Board in its
`
`Decision, Patent Owner will provide a redacted version of Ex. 2096. Second,
`
`Patent Owner requests that confidential testing reports and materials documenting
`
`the proprietary testing methods of third-party test company BioScience (Exs. 2249-
`
`2263) be sealed. BioScience has authorized Patent Owner to file a redacted
`
`version of Ex. 2249. In addition, Patent Owner also requests that portions of the
`
`confidential versions of its Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34) and portions of
`
`confidential versions of Patent Owner’s expert declarations Exs. 2082 (Williams),
`
`2116 (Trattler), and 2130 (Jarosz)) and the transcript of testimony Ex. 2273
`
`(Hoffman) citing or substantially describing the above categories of documents be
`
`sealed.
`
`V. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information
`
`As noted above, Patent Owner requests that excerpts of Patent Owner’s
`
`NDA and portions of its Response and supporting declarations citing or
`
`
`2 Patent Owner understands that Petitioner will be requesting that Ex. 2086
`
`(Petitioner’s ANDA excerpt) be filed under seal in a separate pleading.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`substantially describing those exhibits be sealed. As explained herein, good cause
`
`exists for sealing each category of information.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s NDA and Related Portions of Patent Owner’s
`Response, the Williams, Trattler, and Jarosz Declarations and the
`Hoffman Transcript Should Be Sealed
`
`
`
`Patent Owner requests that certain excerpts from Patent Owner’s NDA (Exs.
`
`2102, 2103, and 2110) be sealed in their entirety, portions of Ex. 2096 be sealed,
`
`and portions of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34), specifically pages 3, 48, 49,
`
`and 51, the Declarations of Patent Owner’s experts, including: Dr. Robert O.
`
`Williams (Ex. 2082), specifically: paragraph nos. 143, 144, 167, 170, 171, 192,
`
`193, and 194; Dr. William Trattler (Ex. 2116), specifically paragraph nos. 16, 41,
`
`and 49; Dr. Jarosz (Ex. 2130), specifically paragraph nos. 17, 56, 82, and 134; and
`
`the transcript of Mr. Hoffman (Ex. 2273), specifically on pages 25, 26, 34, 35, 37-
`
`40, 49, and 53 which cite or substantially describe the excerpts from the NDA be
`
`sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Petitioner Lupin does not oppose sealing these
`
`Exhibits and related materials.
`
`1.
`
`The NDA Contains Patent Owner’s Highly Sensitive,
`Confidential Information
`
`
`
`The information Patent Owner seeks to seal has not been made public by
`
`either party or by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and is not otherwise
`
`available to the public. Patent Owner’s NDA was filed confidentially with the
`
`FDA in order to obtain FDA approval to market its innovative pharmaceutical
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`product. The information Patent Owner seeks to seal contains Patent Owner’s
`
`highly sensitive, confidential development information and technical, business
`
`information. The Exhibits listed above are only excerpts of the much larger NDA
`
`and redaction (or further redaction in the case of Ex. 2096) would not be practical;
`
`therefore, Patent Owner requests that these Exs. 2102, 2103, and 2110 be sealed in
`
`their entirety and portions Ex. 2096 be filed under seal. Moreover, the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response and the supporting declarations (Ex. 2082, 2116, 2130) and
`
`transcript (Ex. 2273) describe the confidential information contained in the NDA.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that these portions of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response and the supporting declarations be sealed.
`
`2. Good Cause Exists to Seal the NDA Exhibits as
`“CONFIDENTIAL” Under the Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order
`
`The Board’s rules identify confidential information in a manner consistent
`
`with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective
`
`orders for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
`
`information. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012). The Board has recognized that NDAs contain confidential commercial
`
`information that should be protected from public disclosure. See Sandoz, Inc. v.
`
`EKR Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2015-00005, paper 21. In sum, here, the public’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`interest in the instant proceeding does not outweigh the parties’ interest in
`
`protecting their sensitive business information.
`
`Because public disclosure of the contents of these documents, or
`
`descriptions of those contents, would disclose confidential business terms in a
`
`highly competitive market, Patent Owner requests that Exhibits 2096, 2102, 2103,
`
`2110, and the portions of Patent Owner’s Response and the Williams, Trattler, and
`
`Jarosz declarations and the Hoffman transcript that cite or substantially describe
`
`the NDA exhibits be sealed, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL”, for the
`
`duration of this proceeding. These exhibits will be refiled with this marking.
`
`B.
`
`Third Party BioScience’s Confidential Testing Reports and
`Materials Documenting Proprietary Testing Methods and the
`Related Paulson Declaration Should Be Sealed
`
`
`
`For similar reasons, Patent Owner requests that the confidential materials of
`
`third party BioScience (Exs. 2249-2263) be sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. As
`
`outlined in the declaration of Deanna J. Field, Vice President of Finance and
`
`Administration of BioScience Laboratories, Inc., (Ex. 2279), Exs. 2249-2263
`
`contain confidential BioScience information related to its proprietary testing
`
`protocol and standard operating procedures, which has been kept confidential by
`
`BioScience. Id. at 3-11. Disclosure of this confidential information to the public,
`
`including BioScience’s competitors, would cause irreparable financial damage to
`
`BioScience. Id. at 11. BioScience has authorized Patent Owner to request that Exs.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`2249-2263 be sealed. Id. at 2. A redacted version of Ex. 2249 will be filed. But,
`
`the remaining documents contain confidential information on all but one page, thus
`
`redaction is not practical. Id. at 3-11. Petitioner Lupin does not oppose sealing
`
`these Exhibits and related materials.
`
`The Board’s rules provide for the protection of trade secret or other
`
`confidential commercial information. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760. Here, the
`
`public’s interest in the instant proceeding does not outweigh a third party’s interest
`
`in protecting this limited sensitive business information. Because public disclosure
`
`of the contents of these documents, or descriptions of those contents, would
`
`disclose confidential business methods of a third party, Patent Owner requests that
`
`Exhibits 2249-2263 be sealed, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL”, for the
`
`duration of this proceeding.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant this motion to seal.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`
`
` /Bryan C. Diner/
`By:
`Bryan C. Diner, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 32,409
`Justin J. Hasford, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 62,180
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 59,369
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Renewed
`
`Motion to Seal was served on July 29, 2016, via email directed to counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Jitendra Malik
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton
`bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`Hidetada James Abe
`James.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph Janusz
`joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`11