`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper: 99
` Entered: August 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., and MYLAN INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion to Seal (Paper 96)
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`
`In an Order dated June 21, 2016, the Board denied Patent Owner’s
`
`request to enter a Stipulated Protective Order. Paper 85. That same day, the
`
`Board denied without prejudice all pending motions to seal documents.
`
`Papers 85–89. Thereafter, on July 28, 2016, the Board entered a Final
`
`Written Decision. Paper 90. On July 29, 2016, Patent Owner filed a
`
`Renewed Motion to Seal. Paper 96 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). This Order
`
`addresses that Motion. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner Lupin” does not
`
`oppose the Motion, but that entity is not a party to this proceeding. Mot. 1.
`
`Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the Motion.
`
`
`
` Concurrently herewith, we enter an Order granting Petitioner’s
`
`unopposed request for entry of the Default Protective Order (Paper 97,
`
`App’x A (copy of Default Protective Order)), which governs the disclosure
`
`of confidential information in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`New Public Versions of Certain Documents Marked Confidential
`
`Patent Owner does not seek to seal certain portions of documents that
`
`were marked confidential and filed provisionally under seal in this
`
`proceeding. Mot. 2–3 (identifying documents previously marked as
`
`confidential and filed provisionally under seal; namely, portions of Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 33), Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response to Petition (Ex. 2271), Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations
`
`(Paper 58), and declarations or testimony of Dr. Paul Laskar (Ex. 2114 and
`
`Ex. 2272), Ivan Hoffman (Ex. 2273), Robert O. Williams (Ex. 2082), and
`
`Stephen G. Davies (Ex. 2105)). Patent Owner states that it will file new
`
`public versions of those papers and exhibits without the “PROTECTIVE
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`ORDER MATERIAL—FED R. EVID 615” marking. Id. Patent Owner has
`
`completed that action. See Papers 94, 96, Ex. 2015, Ex. 2082, Ex. 2114,
`
`Ex. 2271, Ex. 2272, Ex. 2273. Most of those documents were the subject of
`
`Patent Owner’s prior motion to seal (Paper 36) that was denied without
`
`prejudice (Paper 85).
`
`Patent Owner further states that is does not seek to seal certain
`
`research and development presentations (Ex. 2220 and Ex. 2226) that were
`
`the subject of our prior decision (Paper 85) that denied without prejudice
`
`Patent Owner’s prior motion to seal (Paper 36). Mot. 3–4. Patent Owner
`
`also indicates that it no longer seeks to seal Exhibits 2255, 2256, or 2257,
`
`which in the prior motion to seal (Paper 36) were asserted to reflect
`
`confidential information owned by non-party BioScience. Mot. 4. Patent
`
`Owner states that a public version of those exhibits will be filed. Id. Patent
`
`Owner has completed that action. See Ex. 2220, Ex. 2226, Ex. 2255,
`
`Ex. 2256, Ex. 2257.
`
`No further action is required regarding the above documents.
`
`
`
`Granting Request to Seal New Drug Application Exhibits
`
`Patent Owner requests to seal portions of Exhibits 2096, and further,
`
`to seal in their entirety Exhibits 2102, 2103, and 2110. Mot. 6. Patent
`
`Owner identifies those exhibits as excerpts of Patent Owner’s New Drug
`
`Application (“NDA”). We previously denied Patent Owner’s prior motion
`
`to seal Exhibit 2096 because Patent Owner sought to seal that document in
`
`its entirety without establishing adequately that all of the material reflected
`
`therein is confidential. Paper 85, 7. For example, we observed that page 1
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`of Exhibit 2096 “does not appear to contain any confidential or proprietary
`
`information” and directed Patent Owner to address that issue in any later-
`
`filed motion to seal Exhibit 2096. Id. Patent Owner accompanies its
`
`renewed request to seal Exhibit 2096 with a redacted version that addresses
`
`adequately the Board’s concerns. Mot. 6; Ex. 2096 (public version).
`
`Based on our review of Exhibits 2102, 2103, and 2110, and Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments pertaining to them, we are persuaded that good cause
`
`exists to seal those exhibits in their entirety. Mot. 7–9. Petitioner has not
`
`opposed sealing Ehibits 2096, 2102, 2103, or 2210 as proposed by Patent
`
`Owner. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request to seal Exhibits 2096, 2102,
`
`2103, and 2110 is granted.
`
`Patent Owner seeks to seal other documents alleged to reflect
`
`information contained in Exhibits 2096, 2102, 2103, and 2110. Specifically,
`
`Patent Owner seeks to seal pages 3, 48, 49, and 51 of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper 34); paragraphs 143, 144, 167, 170, 171, 192, 193, and 194
`
`of the declaration of Dr. Williams (Ex. 2082); paragraphs 16, 41, and 49 of
`
`the declaration of Dr. Trattler (Ex. 2116), paragraphs 17, 56, 82, and 134 of
`
`the declaration of Dr. Jarosz (Ex. 2130); and pages 25, 26, 34, 35, 37–40, 49,
`
`and 53 of the deposition transcript of Mr. Hoffman (Ex. 2273). Mot. 7.
`
`Patent Owner shows sufficiently that those documents “cite or
`
`substantially describe the excerpts from the NDA” and, thereby, reveal
`
`confidential information. Id. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request to seal
`
`those documents is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`Granting Request to Seal Exhibits of Non-Party BioScience
`
`In addition, Patent Owner requests to seal exhibits alleged to reflect
`
`confidential information owned by non-party BioScience; specifically,
`
`Exhibits 2249–2263. Mot. 9. Previously, we denied Patent Owner’s prior
`
`request to seal those materials because Patent Owner had “neither
`
`demonstrated that the exhibits contain proprietary information nor
`
`established its standing to assert” any interest of BioScience in this
`
`proceeding. Paper 88, 3. The instant Motion, by contrast, is supported by a
`
`declaration of Deanna J. Field, Vice President of Finance and
`
`Administration of BioScience (Ex. 2279). That declaration establishes
`
`adequately BioScience’s interest in shielding from public disclosure certain
`
`proprietary testing protocol and standard operating procedures, kept
`
`confidential by BioScience, as reflected in Exhibits 2249–2263. Mot. 9;
`
`Ex. 2279, 3–11.
`
`Patent Owner shows sufficiently that public disclosure of the
`
`information sought to be sealed would cause financial damage to
`
`BioScience. Ex. 2279, 10. Patent Owner further shows sufficiently that
`
`“BioScience has authorized Patent Owner to request that Exs. 2249–2263 be
`
`sealed.” Mot. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2279, 2). Patent Owner submits an
`
`appropriately redacted public version of Ex. 2249. Petitioner also shows
`
`sufficiently that Exhibits 2250–2263 “contain confidential information on all
`
`but one page, thus redaction is not practical.” Mot. 10 (citing Ex. 2279, 3–
`
`11). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s request to seal Exhibits 2249–2263 is
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`Requiring a Joint Stipulation and Counsel Certification
`
`By September 2, 2016, Patent Owner and Petitioner shall file a Joint
`
`Stipulation that identifies with particularity the exact portions (by page or
`
`paragraph number) of all sealed papers and exhibits that are cited in the
`
`Final Written Decision. The Joint Stipulation shall include a Counsel
`
`Certification attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the Joint
`
`Stipulation, including a statement verifying that the exact portion of each
`
`paper and exhibit cited in the Final Written Decision is identified (by page or
`
`paragraph number) in the Joint Stipulation.
`
`We specifically provided the parties advance notice “that information
`
`subject to a protective order will become public if identified in a final
`
`written decision in this proceeding.” Paper 85, 4. Further, the Rules of
`
`Practice for Trial Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Rules of
`
`Practice”) provide that:
`
`Confidential information that is subject to a protective order ordinarily
`will become public 45 days after denial of a petition to institute a trial
`or 45 days after final judgment in a trial. There is an expectation that
`information will be made public where the existence of the information
`is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute a review
`or is identified in a final written decision following a trial. A party
`seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information, however, may
`file a motion to expunge the information from the record prior to the
`information becoming public.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. No. 157, Part V at Section I.E.6. (Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis
`
`added). There is a presumption, therefore, that any confidential information
`
`cited in the Final Written Decision, entered July 28, 2016, shall become
`
`public on September 12, 2016.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`A strong public interest favors maintaining a complete and
`
`understandable record of the patent history, including the factual basis for
`
`the Board’s findings and the intelligibility of the Final Written Decision.
`
`Patent Owner recognizes that public interest but fails to show sufficiently
`
`that it is outweighed by any private business interest in this case Mot. 4–5,
`
`9. By placing confidential information before the Board, Patent Owner
`
`accepted the risk that the information would become public if relied upon in
`
`the Final Written Decision. Rules of Practice, 77 Fed. Reg. No. 157, Part V
`
`at Section I.E.6. (Aug. 14, 2012) (“There is an expectation that information
`
`will be made public where the existence of the information . . . is identified
`
`in a final written decision following a trial.”).
`
`Accordingly, all papers and exhibits identified in the Joint Stipulation
`
`shall be unsealed and made publicly available on September 12, 2016, unless
`
`a revised public version of the paper or exhibit, conforming to the following
`
`requirements, is filed by September 2, 2016 (that is, ten days prior to the
`
`date set for unsealing). Specifically, a party may prevent the unsealing of
`
`any paper or exhibit identified in the Joint Stipulation by filing, no later than
`
`September 2, 2016, a revised public version of the paper or exhibit in which
`
`each page or paragraph cited in the Final Written Decision is left unredacted.
`
`Material not cited in the Final Written Decision may be redacted in the
`
`revised public version.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`Other Matters
`
`Any request for reconsideration of this Order shall be filed no later
`
`than September 2, 2016.
`
`No further briefing is authorized at this time.
`
`Should the parties require assistance in complying with this Order, the
`
`Board is available for a teleconference during the week of August 29, 2016.
`
`Counsel may initiate a request for a teleconference by sending an email to
`
`Trials@USPTO.gov.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion to Seal is granted
`
`to the extent set forth in this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, by September 2, 2016, Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner shall file a Joint Stipulation as described in this Order, which
`
`identifies with particularity the exact portions (by page or paragraph
`
`number) of all sealed papers and exhibits that are cited in the Final Written
`
`Decision;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation shall include a
`
`Counsel Certification attesting to the accuracy and completeness of the Joint
`
`Stipulation, including a statement verifying that the exact portion of each
`
`paper and exhibit cited in the Final Written Decision is identified (by page or
`
`paragraph number) in the Joint Stipulation;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all papers and exhibits identified in the
`
`Joint Stipulation shall be unsealed and made publicly available on
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`September 12, 2016, unless a revised public version of the paper or exhibit,
`
`conforming to the requirements of this Order, is filed by September 2, 2016;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a party may prevent the unsealing of any
`
`paper or exhibit identified in the Joint Stipulation by filing, no later than
`
`September 2, 2016, a revised public version of the paper or exhibit in which
`
`each page or paragraph cited in the Final Written Decision is left unredacted;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any request for reconsideration of this
`
`Order shall be filed no later than September 2, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902
`Patent 8,669,290 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jitendra Malik
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`Hidetada James Abe
`james.abe@alston.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bryan C. Diner
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Justin J. Hasford
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`