`Filed: March 31, 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.,
`LUPIN LTD., and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)1
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01871 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Governing Rules and PTAB Guidance ............................................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. Background and Identification of Confidential Information ........................... 3
`
`IV. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information .................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Confidential Information Contained in the
`Testimony of Mr. Hofmann Should Be Sealed ..................................... 5
`
`Under the Rule on Witnesses, Transcript of Petitioner
`InnoPharma’s Experts Should Be Sealed Until Petitioner
`Lupin’s Expert Has Concluded Her Testimony in the Related
`IPR Proceedings .................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Geders v. United States,
`425 U.S. 80 (1976) ................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`BOARD DECISIONS
`Sandoz, Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00005, Paper 21 .................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ...................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54 .................................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`Introduction
`
`Through this Motion to Seal, Patent Owner requests that two categories of
`
`
`I.
`
`
`exhibits be sealed: (1) Patent Owner’s confidential information from Patent
`
`Owner’s New Drug Application (“NDA”) (EX2273); (2) the transcript of
`
`testimony of Petitioner InnoPharma’s experts, Dr. Paul Laskar (EX2272) and Mr.
`
`Ivan Hofmann (EX2273). In addition, Patent Owner also requests that the
`
`confidential version of Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Reply Witnesses Dr. Paul A. Laskar, Ph.D., and Ivan T. Hofmann,
`
`CPA/CFF, CLP (“Observations”) (Paper 58 (FED. R. EVID. 615 version to be
`
`made public once FED. R. EVID. 615 has been lifted, as explained herein)) citing
`
`or substantially describing the second category of documents be sealed. Finally,
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, Patent Owner renews its request for entry of the Proposed
`
`Stipulated Protective Order, Paper 36, filed on December 28, 2015. To the best of
`
`Patent Owner’s knowledge, the Patent Owner certifies that the information
`
`identified as confidential in this motion have not been published or otherwise made
`
`public. Petitioner does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. 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
`
`
`
`
`file a concurrent motion to seal and the information at issue is sealed pending the
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`outcome of the motion.
`
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 provides:
`
`The record of a proceeding, including documents and
`things, shall be made available to the public, except as
`otherwise ordered. A party intending a document or thing
`to be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the
`filing of the document or thing to be sealed. The
`document or thing shall be provisionally sealed on
`receipt of the motion and remain so pending the outcome
`of the decision on the motion.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`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).
`
`A motion to seal is also required to include a proposed protective order and a
`
`certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to
`
`confer with the opposing party in an effort to come to an agreement as to the scope
`
`of the proposed protective order for this inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`III. Background and Identification of Confidential Information
`
`As discussed with the Board on November 17, 2015, this IPR is related to
`
`nine other IPR proceedings, specifically, IPR2015-00902, IPR2016-00089,
`
`IPR2016-00090, and IPR2016-00091 (filed by Petitioner InnoPharma Licensing,
`
`Inc. et al.), and IPR2015-01871, IPR2015-010967, IPR2015-01099, IPR2015-
`
`01100, and IPR2015-1105 (filed by Petitioner Lupin Ltd. et al.) (“Related IPR
`
`Proceedings”). Collectively, these ten proceedings involve five patents (U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,669,290; 8,129,431; 8,754,131; 8,927,606; and 8,871,813)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-at-Issue”), which all share the same specification and are
`
`owned by Patent Owner. On January 25, 2016, the Board granted institution in
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01871 and joined that proceeding to IPR2015-00903, both involving
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`the ’431 patent. IPR2015-01871, Paper 13. On February 25, 2016, the Board: (1)
`
`granted institution in IPR2016-00089 and joined that proceeding to IPR2015-
`
`01097, both involving the ’131 patent, see IPR2016-0089, Paper 22; (2) granted
`
`institution in IPR2016-00090 and joined that proceeding to IPR2015-01105, both
`
`involving the ’813 patent, see IPR2016-0090, Paper 13; and (3) granted institution
`
`in IPR2016-00091 and joined that proceeding to IPR2015-01100, both involving
`
`the ’606 patent, see IPR2016-0089, Paper 14.
`
`
`
`In anticipation of the Board’s possible joinder order, the parties (including
`
`Lupin) have crafted the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order (filed December 28,
`
`2015) contemplating that this proceeding (IPR2015-00903) and Lupin’s petition in
`
`IPR2015-01871 may be joined.
`
`
`
`In support of their respective petitions in the Related IPR Proceedings,
`
`Petitioner InnoPharma has relied on the opinions of Dr. Laskar and Petitioner
`
`Lupin has relied on the opinions of Dr. Jayne Lawrence. Although their
`
`declarations are not identical, Drs. Laskar and Lawrence rely on the same
`
`references to support their opinions regarding the validity of the Patents-at-Issue.
`
`Because the petitions are proceeding on various timelines, Senju has already cross
`
`examined Dr. Laskar twice in some of these petitions (see e.g., IPR2015-00902,
`
`IPR2015-00903), but has only cross examined Dr. Lawrence once in related
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`petitions (see, e.g., IPR2015-01099, IPR2015-01097) and expects to cross examine
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`Dr. Lawrence again in connection with any reply declaration that she executes. As
`
`explained herein, under Federal Rule of Evidence 615, Patent Owner requests that
`
`the transcripts of testimony of Dr. Laskar and Mr. Hofmann be sealed from Dr.
`
`Lawrence and other potential reply witnesses that Petitioner Lupin may offer until
`
`the cross examination on Petitioner Lupin’s petitions has concluded. To that end,
`
`the parties have crafted the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order contemplating
`
`that the transcript of testimony of an expert may be sealed for a limited period of
`
`time under FRE 615. To do so, Patent Owner is filing the Laskar Transcript, Ex.
`
`2272, and the Hofmann Transcript, Ex. 2273, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL - FED R. EVID 615” under the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order.
`
`IV. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information
`
`As noted above, Patent Owner requests that two exhibits and the Patent
`
`Owner’s Observations which citing or substantially describing those exhibits be
`
`sealed. As explained herein, good cause exists for sealing this information.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s Confidential Information Contained in the
`Testimony of Mr. Hofmann Should Be Sealed
`
`
`
`Patent Owner requests that several excerpts from the cross-examination
`
`transcript (EX 2273) of Mr. Hofmann be sealed (24:21-25:4; 33:8-9; 33:19-21;
`
`34:3-4; 36:2-3; 37:6; 37:22-38:1; 38:3-4; 38:19-20; 39:13-14; 48:21-22; 52:11-12).
`
`In this testimony, Mr. Hofmann discloses Patent Owner’s highly sensitive,
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`confidential, technical information. This confidential information has not been
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`made public by either party or by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and
`
`is not otherwise available to the public. This information was filed as part of
`
`Patent Owner’s NDA that was filed confidentially with the FDA in order to obtain
`
`FDA approval to market its innovative pharmaceutical product. Accordingly,
`
`Patent Owner requests that this discrete portion of Mr. Hofmann’s transcript be
`
`sealed.
`
`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). Accordingly, the Board has recognized that New Drug Applications
`
`(“NDA”) 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 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 portions of Exhibit 2273 be
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`sealed, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL - BOARD’S EYES ONLY”, for
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`the duration of this proceeding.
`
`B. Under the Rule on Witnesses, Transcript of Petitioner
`InnoPharma’s Experts Should Be Sealed Until Petitioner Lupin’s
`Expert Has Concluded Her Testimony in the Related IPR
`Proceedings
`
`
`
`Patent Owner further requests that the transcript of Dr. Paul A. Laskar’s
`
`testimony (Ex. 2272) and the transcript of Ivan T. Hofmann’s testimony (Ex. 2273)
`
`be sealed in entirety under Federal Rule of Evidence 615 (“FRE”) (Excluding
`
`Witnesses) until such time as the cross examination of Petitioner Lupin’s expert Dr.
`
`Lawrence in connection with Lupin’s petition in the Related IPR Proceedings, as
`
`well as any other reply witness offered by Lupin, has been concluded. Dr.
`
`Lawrence has not yet been cross examined in those related proceedings, but has
`
`relied on the same references as Dr. Laskar in rendering her opinions regarding
`
`validity of the patent at issue. Petitioner does not oppose sealing these Exhibits
`
`and materials that cite to or substantially describe these Exhibits.
`
`The Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) generally apply to inter partes
`
`reviews. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a). Under FRE 615, “[a]t a party’s request, the
`
`court must order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear other witnesses’
`
`testimony.” The U.S. Supreme Court has long-recognized the goal of sequestering
`
`witnesses, known as the “rule on witnesses,” is two-fold. Geders v. United States,
`
`425 U.S. 80, 87 (1976). First, the rule “exercises a restraint on witnesses
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`‘tailoring’ their testimony to that of earlier witnesses.” Id. Second, the rules “aids
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`in detecting testimony that is less than candid.” Id. (internal citation omitted). For
`
`the same reasons, given the similarity of their positions on validity of the patent at
`
`issue, good cause exists to seal the testimony of Dr. Laskar and Mr. Hofmann for a
`
`limited time, until Dr. Lawrence has been cross-examined in connection with
`
`Lupin’s petition on the patent at issue. Once expert testimony has been completed,
`
`then the transcripts of both experts can be unsealed and made public.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Patent Owner requests that Patent Owner’s Observations be
`
`likewise sealed for the same duration, because they quote, cite or substantially
`
`describe portions of Dr. Laskar’s and Mr. Hofmann’s testimony that should be
`
`sealed under FRE 615. Patent Owner has not provided a redacted version of the
`
`Observations, because of the extensive nature of the material to be filed under FRE
`
`615 cited therein.
`
`Because public disclosure of the contents of the Laskar or Hofmann
`
`testimony, or descriptions of those contents, would risk the harms described by the
`
`Supreme Court in Gedars, Patent Owner requests that the testimony of Dr. Laskar
`
`(EX2272), Mr. Hofmann (EX2273), and the Observations (Paper 58) be sealed in
`
`their entirety, under Federal Rule of Evidence 615, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL - FED R. EVID 615” until such time as Dr. Lawrence’s testimony in
`
`the Related Proceedings has concluded.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`Board grant this motion to seal.
`
`Date: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/Bryan C. Diner/
`
`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
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett
` & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`(202) 408-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Seal was served on March 31, 2016, via email directed to
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D
`Jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton, Ph.D.
`Bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`Lance.soderstrom@alson.com
`
`Hitetada James Abe
`James.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph M. Janusz
`Joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`Deborah Yellin
`dyellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`Shannon Lentz
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`
`
`Date: March 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP