`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00990
`Patent 7,056,886
`
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S COMBINED MOTION TO SEAL AND MOTION FOR
`ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`27854392v1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, Patent Owner NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“NPS”) moves to file certain Exhibits filed with its Patent Owner’s Response
`
`under seal. As detailed below, these Exhibits contain highly confidential and
`
`extremely sensitive information related to financial matters pertaining to Patent
`
`Owner’s core business. Further, as set forth below, Patent Owner also requests
`
`entry of the Protective Order filed with this Motion as Ex. 2050
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner contacted Counsel for Petitioner and requested
`
`Petitioner’s consent to file certain Exhibits under seal and for consent to enter a
`
`modified Protective Order. The parties have been unable to reach an agreement
`
`with respect to the modified Protective Order, and Patent Owner understands that
`
`Petitioner opposes this motion. Specifically, Petitioner seems to object to the two-
`
`tiered format of the Modified Protective Order proposed by Patent Owner that
`
`includes an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provision. However, due to the granular and
`
`highly confidential nature of the Attorneys’ Eyes Only information contained in
`
`the relevant Exhibits, Patent Owner requests that that the attached Modified
`
`Protective Order, which differs from the Model Protective Order only in that it
`
`contains a second tier of confidentiality be entered so that the two identified
`
`exhibits may be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Further, Patent Owner seeks
`
`to have two Confidential (but not Attorneys’ Eyes Only) exhibits sealed from
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`public view under paragraph 2 of the Modified Protective Order, which mirrors the
`
`provisions for Confidential material in the Default Protective Order.
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “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.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, those 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.” Id.
`
`(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.54).
`
`As summarized in Table 1 below and detailed below, Patent Owner is
`
`submitting two categories of information to support arguments presented in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response. The first category of Confidential information includes two
`
`expert declarations that summarize sensitive competitive information relating to
`
`R&D and testing and marketing research, all of which that falls under paragraph
`
`2 of the Modified Protective Order.1 Patent Owner does not believe there is any
`
`
`1 As noted, this information would also be considered confidential information
`
`under the Default Protective Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`dispute that this “Category 1” information would be considered Confidential even
`
`under the Default Protective Order, and thus should be sealed under the
`
`“standard” confidentiality provisions. Based on the arguments presented in the
`
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner believes that the Board will need to rely
`
`only on this summary information in making its determinations. Similarly, Patent
`
`Owner believes that the Petitioner will need to rely only on this summary
`
`information in formulating its arguments in response to the Patent Owner
`
`Response.
`
`The second category of information the Highly Confidential – Attorneys’
`
`Eyes Only – R&D and testing and marketing research at a competitively
`
`significant level. There are only two documents that would qualify as “Category 2”
`
`information, each identified in the chart below. This information serves as the
`
`underlying foundation for the declarations provided as “Category 1” material.
`
`Patent Owner presents this level of detail only to provide the Board and Petitioner
`
`with its basis for the arguments and conclusions presented in the expert
`
`declarations associated with the Patent Owner Response.
`
`The disclosure of this information, however, would significantly harm Patent
`
`Owner’s competitive position as it would allow a hedge fund entity, or at least an
`
`entity owned and controlled by Hedge Funds (see generally Pet., 3-5; Paper 9), to
`
`have direct access to some of the most sensitive R&D and marketing information
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`there is. Patent Owner also submits that it is necessary to designate preclude
`
`Petitioner’s in-house counsel from accessing certain information because it is
`
`believed that they are substantively involved in the decision-making of Petitioner
`
`(and other RPI’s to this proceeding). Allowing Petitioner access to Patent Owner’s
`
`this highly sensitive information in this proceeding would be both unnecessary and
`
`dangerous.
`
`The public interest will not be harmed by the entry of this attached Modified
`
`Protective Order, filing of the Category 1 exhibits under seal as Confidential
`
`information, or filing the Category 2 exhibits under seal as Attorney’s Eyes Only.
`
`In particular, there should be no reason for the Board to rely on Category 2
`
`material in any decision regarding patentability. Thus, the Category 2 materials
`
`should not be implicated. Further, to the extent that any sealed Confidential
`
`materials are relied on by the Board in any decision regarding patentability, they
`
`may ultimately become part of the public record regardless of the outcome of the
`
`instant motion.
`
`As mentioned above, Petitioner’s ability to raise its claims or defenses will
`
`not be impacted by filing the identified exhibits under seal. In particular, Petitioner
`
`(both in-house and outside counsel) will have access to the core information that
`
`supports Petitioner’s Patent Owner Response. Additionally, to the extent
`
`Petitioner’s outside counsel needs access to the underlying Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`information in order to explore the basis for the high-level summary financial
`
`information, such access will still be available even under the Modified Protective
`
`Order. There is simply no reason why Petitioner’s in-house counsel needs access to
`
`the two particular documents that include such competitively sensitive information.
`
`TABLE 1 – Proposed Sealed Papers and Exhibits
`
`CATEGORY 1 MATERIALS
`To be Sealed as “Confidential” under Paragraph 2 of the Modified Protective Order
`Paper/Exhibit
`Summary of Contents
`Good Cause for Sealing Exhibit
`No.
`
`Contains Confidential Development
`Information—This document
`contains non-public information
`relating to development and testing of
`Gattex®.
`
`Redactions at ¶ 73 (chart)
`
`Contains Confidential Development
`and Financial information—This
`document contains non-public
`information relating to development,
`testing, and summary financial
`information.
`
`Redactions at ¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 25, 36,
`and 47 and Figures 1, 2, and 3
`
`Exhibit No. 2040 Declaration of John F.
`Carpenter, Ph.D.
`
`Exhibit No. 2041 Declaration of Donald
`Rausser, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`
`
`CATEGORY 2 MATERIALS
`To be Sealed as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under Paragraph 3 of the Modified
`Protective Order
`Summary of Contents
`Good Cause for Sealing Exhibit
`
`Paper/Exhibit
`No.
`Exhibit No. 2056 Process Validation
`and/or Evaluation
`for Gattex
`
`Exhibit No. 2075
`
`Gattex Physician
`Report
`
`
`
`Contains Highly Confidential R&D
`and Testing Information—This
`document contains non-public
`information relating to the development
`and testing of Gattex.
`
`Contains Highly Confidential
`Financial Information—This
`document contains
`specific non-public Highly
`Confidential marketing information
`relating to corporate strategy for
`Gattex. Summaries of the relevant
`financial information contained in
`this Exhibit are provided in Ex.
`2041as Category 1 information.
`
`In Ex. 2040 and Ex. 2041 (expert declarations) identified above, Patent
`
`Owner has redacted only the specific information that it considers Confidential
`
`(Category 1) information, leaving the large majority of its analysis unredacted and
`
`available to the public. Accordingly, employees such as in-house counsel for
`
`Petitioner will have access to the summary information, arguments and expert
`
`analysis presented by Patent Owner. The two documents that serve as the
`
`underlying information for the Category 1 summaries are provided as Attorneys
`
`Eyes Only material. As noted above, this information is the factual foundation for
`
`the Category 1 summary information. Petitioner’s Outside Counsel will have
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`access to this information to verify the summaries and will be afforded a full
`
`opportunity to present Petitioner’s full defense.
`
`The Board has agreed to enter a protective order virtually identical to the one
`
`proposed here on at least two occasions. For example, in Greene’s Energy Group,
`
`LLC, Inc. v. Oil States Energy Services, LLC, the patent owner sought entry of a
`
`protective order that added a provision for “Attorney’s Eyes Only” just as the
`
`proposed protective order here and to protect substantially similar information to
`
`that asked to be protected here. IPR2014-00216, Paper 27. The Board agreed to
`
`that protective order and the patent owner’s designations under the protective order
`
`because: (1) “the information in question was relied upon by Patent Owner only to
`
`the extent it provides the factual basis for some of the conclusions reached by [an
`
`expert];” (2) “[u]nder the proposed protective order, Petitioner would be able to
`
`conduct cross-examination of [the expert] with outside counsel;” and (3) the
`
`petitioner “would be able to retain an expert who would also have access to the
`
`information in [the exhibits marked “Attorney’s Eyes Only”].” Id. at 6-7; see also
`
`Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00167,
`
`Paper 32, 3-4 (approving entry of a disputed modified Protective Order which
`
`created an Attorneys’ Eyes Only category for “competitively sensitive confidential
`
`information”). These same reasons apply to this proceeding.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner could suffer great prejudice if the modified
`
`Protective Order is not entered. The Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only –
`
`materials submitted will only be relevant if a cascading series of events unfolds.
`
`That is, only if the claims of the ’886 Patent are found unpatentable over the prior
`
`art, and then only if the secondary considerations of non-obviousness are evaluated
`
`and then only if the financial information (e.g., related to commercial success) is
`
`deemed material to the determination, and then only if the underlying granular
`
`information in Ex. 2056 and Ex. 2075 is somehow also deemed relevant, would the
`
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only documents potentially become relevant. Without entry of the
`
`modified Protective Order and sealing of the materials, there is a high probability
`
`that Patent Owner’s highly confidential financial information will have been
`
`disclosed to in-house counsel of an entity that has already shown its desire and
`
`ability to financially affect Patent Owner – when that level of detailed information
`
`was not even considered in the final decision. See, e.g., Paper 22, 1-3 (Petitioner
`
`and RPI’s are using the IPR process to manipulate stock price.).
`
`While Patent Owner understands and accepts that its confidential Category 1
`
`financial information may become public if it is relied upon by the Board in its
`
`final decision, the conditions of it becoming public are narrow and contingent. And
`
`this contingency should not apply to the Category 2 Highly Confidential –
`
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only – material that serves only as the foundational support for
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`the summary information relied on by Patent Owner. While these conditions are
`
`possible, the prejudice to Patent Owner for the disclosure of its confidential
`
`financial information to a competitor absent these conditions would be high.
`
`Because counsel for Petitioner can present a complete and full defense even
`
`if Patent Owner’s highly sensitive confidential financial information is deemed
`
`“Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” and because the confidential financial information may
`
`only end up being contingently relied upon by the Board, good cause exits for
`
`entry of the Modified Protective Order. Entry of its Modified Protective Order
`
`would help achieve “a balance between the public’s interest in maintaining a
`
`complete and understandable file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly
`
`sensitive information.”
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`On behalf of Patent Owner, undersigned counsel certifies the information
`
`identified in the exhibits and sought to be sealed has not, to their knowledge, been
`
`published or otherwise made public.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`Patent Owner has in good faith conferred with Petitioner but has been unable
`
`to reach an agreement with Petitioner regarding the modified Protective Order.
`
`Petitioner does not agree with the scope and content of the Protective Order and
`
`has represented that it opposes this motion for a Protective Order.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`IV. PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization, Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`entry of the attached Protective Order in place of the Default Protective Order. A
`
`clean copy of Patent Owner’s proposed protective order is attached as Exhibit
`
`2050.
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed Modified Protective Order is substantially similar
`
`to the Default Protective Order. In particular, there are only two substantive
`
`changes from the Default Protective Order. First, paragraph two has been amended
`
`to specify that confidential information is to be marked “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL.” Good cause exists for this amendment because it provides necessary
`
`clarity regarding who may receive confidential material as a part of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Second, paragraph three has been added to allow for certain highly sensitive
`
`confidential information to be marked “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL –
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Information with this designation may only be
`
`disclosed to outside counsel, retained experts, the Office and Support Personnel.
`
`Good cause exists for this amendment because it will allow for extremely sensitive
`
`confidential information to be submitted to the Board without harming either a
`
`party’s competitive position or the ability for any party to raise a claim or defense.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`Upon entry of the Protective Order, Patent Owner designates Ex. 2040, and
`
`2041 “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.” Upon entry of the Protective Order,
`
`Patent Owner designates Ex. 2056 and Ex. 2075 “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Protective Order attached as
`
`Ex. 2050 be entered in this case and the Category 1 Materials identified above be
`
`sealed pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Protective Order and the Category 2
`
`Materials identified above be sealed as Attorneys’ Eyes Only.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph R. Robinson/
`Joseph R. Robinson, PTO Reg. No. 33,448
`Heather M. Ettinger, PTO Reg. No. 51,658
`Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Response, Patent Owner’s Combined Motion to Seal and Motion for
`
`Entry of Protective Order, and associated exhibits were served via electronic mail
`
`on January 20, 2015 on attorney for Petitioner:
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Dustin B. Weeks/
`Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27854392v1