`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 59
`
`
` Entered: June 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INNOPHARMA
`LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, INNOPHARMA
`INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and
`MYLAN INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)1
`Case IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)2
` Case IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)3
`____________
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION4
`Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 1181
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2016-00089 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2016-00091 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Case IPR2016-00090 has been joined with this proceeding.
`4 This Decision relates to and shall be filed in each referenced case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`In each of the captioned proceedings, Petitioners filed a Motion to
`
`Seal the transcript of the deposition of Ivan T. Hofmann taken in IPR2015-
`
`00902 and IPR015-00903 (Ex. 1181). Paper 505 (“Mot.”).
`
`For the reasons described in the following discussion, we deny
`
`without prejudice Petitioners’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 1181.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`“There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a
`
`quasi-judicial administrative proceeding open to the public, especially in an
`
`inter partes review which determines the patentability of claims in an issued
`
`patent and therefore affects the rights of the public.” Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013)
`
`(Paper 34). A motion to seal may be granted for good cause. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.54. The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is good
`
`cause for the relief requested, including why the information is appropriate
`
`to be filed under seal. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20, 42.54. The Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide notes that 37 C.F.R. § 42.54 identifies 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. 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 48,760. Until a motion to seal is decided, documents filed with the
`
`motion shall be sealed provisionally. 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`
`
`
` 5
`
` Petitioners state the “word-for-word” identical paper was filed in each
`captioned proceeding. Paper and Exhibit numbers are the same in each of
`those proceeding.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`Petitioners assert, “It is Petitioners’ understanding that this document
`
`has been designated by Patent Owner as Protective Order Material or Fed. R.
`
`Evid. 615 Materials.” Mot. 1. We have no record of that designation.
`
`Petitioner cites only to the “Proposed Stipulated Protective Orders.” Id.
`
`Exhibit 1181, however, is not cited in any previous motion to seal or
`
`proposed protective order. Petitioners’ motion fails to characterize what
`
`portion of the exhibit is deemed confidential and why. In other words,
`
`Petitioners, as the moving party, have failed their burden of showing that
`
`there is good cause for the relief requested. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20, 42.54.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner states that it “makes no assertion as to whether or not
`
`[Exhibit 1181] may contain confidential information.” Id.
`
`Moreover, a protective order has not been entered in the captioned
`
`proceedings and an acceptable proposed protective order has not been filed.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 1181 is
`
`denied without prejudice. We exercise our discretion to maintain
`
`Exhibit 1181 under a provisional seal, in the manner requested, through July
`
`31, 2016, to allow time for a party to file motion to seal the exhibit, showing
`
`good cause for the relief requested, after a protective order is entered in this
`
`proceeding, and/or to withdraw the provisionally sealed exhibit.
`
`In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Petitioners’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 1181 is denied
`
`without prejudice;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1181 shall remain provisionally
`
`sealed until further notice by the Board;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED a party may file a revised or new motion to
`
`seal and/or withdraw provisionally sealed Exhibit 1181 on or before July 31,
`
`2016; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition to a revised or new
`
`motion to seal shall be filed within 5 business days after the filing of the
`
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Deborah Yellin
`DYellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`JLindsay@crowell.com
`
`Teresa Rea
`trea@crowell.com
`
`Jitendra Malik
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton
`bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bryan Diner
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Justin Hasford
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Joshua Goldberg
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`