`Filed: July 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., INNOPHARMA
`LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC, INNOPHARMA
`INC., INNOPHARMA LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and
`MYLAN INC.
`Petitioner
`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, 4
`__________________
`
`RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`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 A word-for-word identical paper has been filed in each proceeding identified in
`
`the heading.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Procedural History ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III. Governing Rules and PTAB Guidance ............................................................ 5
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Confidential Information ...................................................... 6
`
`V. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information .................. 7
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s NDA and Related Portions of Patent Owner’s
`Response, and the Williams, Trattler, Myers and Jarosz
`Declarations Should Be Sealed ............................................................. 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The NDA Contains Patent Owner’s Highly Sensitive,
`Confidential Information ............................................................ 8
`
`Good Cause Exists to Seal the NDA Exhibits as
`“CONFIDENTIAL” Under the Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order .......................................................................... 9
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Confidential Information in Testimony of Patent Owner’s
`Officer, the Related Portions of the Jarosz Declaration, and the
`Jarosz Reply Expert Report in the District Court Case Should
`Be Sealed ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Third Party BioScience’s Confidential Testing Reports and
`Materials Documenting Proprietary Testing Methods and the
`Related Paulson Declaration Should Be Sealed .................................. 12
`
`VI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`BOARD DECISIONS
`Sandoz, Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC,
`IPR2015-00005, Paper 21 .................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 ...................................................................................... 5, 7, 10, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20 ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54 ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................... 5, 9, 11, 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`Introduction
`
`Through this Renewed Motion to Seal, Patent Owner requests that three
`
`categories of exhibits be sealed: (1) excerpts of Patent Owner’s New Drug
`
`Application (“NDA”) (Exs. 2096, 2102, 2103, 2110, 2251, 2291-2293); (2)
`
`information related to the commercial success of Patent Owner’s product from a
`
`related district court case (Ex. 2258, 2323); and (3) confidential testing reports and
`
`materials documenting the proprietary testing methods of a third-party test
`
`company (Exs. 2267-2278, 2294). Patent Owner also requests that portions of its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23) and expert declarations (Exs. 2126 (Myers),
`
`2128 (Paulson), 2082 (Williams), 2116 (Trattler), and 2130 (Jarosz)) 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 February 25, 2016,
`
`Patent Owner filed Motion to Seal and Motion to Enter Stipulated Protective Order
`
`(Paper 25), requesting that certain exhibits and pleadings be sealed, specifically:
`
`Exs. 2096, 2102, 2103, 2110, 2251, 2291–2293 (related to Patent Owner’s NDA;
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exs. 2220, 2226, and 2296 (Patent Owner’s presentations); Ex. 2258 (testimony on
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`market share of Patent Owner’s product); Exs. 2267-2278, 2286, 2294 (testing
`
`reports and materials from third-party test companies); Exs. 2114, 2316 (transcripts
`
`of testimony of experts in the co-pending IPRs); portions of Patent Owner’s
`
`Response (Paper 23); and Exs. 2082, 2105, 2116, 2126, 2128, 2130 (declarations
`
`of various experts citing or substantially describing the categories of documents
`
`sought to be sealed). Also on February 25, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Joint
`
`Motion to Seal (Paper 26) requesting that Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23) and
`
`Exhibit 2082 (Declaration of Dr. Robert O. Williams) citing Petitioner Lupin’s
`
`Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) (Ex. 2109) be filed under seal. On
`
`May 5, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 41) requesting that the
`
`Reply Expert Report of John C. Jarosz (Ex. 2323), from the related Senju
`
`Pharmaceutical, et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al., No. 14-cv-00667, be filed under seal.
`
`On June 21, 2016, the Board denied the parties request to enter the
`
`Stipulated Protective Order (Paper 61) and denied all pending requests to seal
`
`exhibits and pleadings without prejudice (Papers 57, 58, 61). As noted in the
`
`Second Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (Paper 64) filed on July
`
`18, 2016, the parties modified the previously Stipulated Protective Order as
`
`directed by the Board. Among other things, the parties removed the category of
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`confidential information that may be marked as “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL-FED R. EVID 615” (Decision at 4) because this category is no longer
`
`necessary now that discovery has been completed. Accordingly, in this Motion,
`
`Patent Owner will not be seeking to seal portions of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`(Paper 24) and of the declarations or testimony of Dr. Paul Laskar (Ex. 2114), Dr.
`
`Jayne Lawrence (Ex. 2316), 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, 2226, and
`
`2286) and the transcript of Tracy Valorie (Ex. 2258), 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 58 at 8.) Patent
`
`Owner did not request that any portions of the Patent Owner’s Response be sealed,
`
`because the information from Exs. 2220, 2226, 2286 and 2258 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 substantial
`
`marketplace success of Prolensa® (Paper 23 at 3-4, 49 (citing Ex. 2130 at ¶¶ 16-
`
`17, 56-76)) and Dr. Jarosz supported his testimony with citations to the Valorie
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transcript (Ex. 2258 in ¶ 68). Likewise, Patent Owner’s Response also relied on
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`the testimony of Dr. Jarosz regarding the benefits of the invention (Paper 23 at 50
`
`(citing Ex. 2130 at ¶ 84) and Dr. Jarosz supported that testimony with citations to
`
`Patent Owner’s research and development presentations (see e.g., Ex. 2130 at ¶ 81
`
`(citing Ex. 2226), Ex. 2130 at ¶¶ 98-101 (citing Ex. 2220), Ex. 2130 at ¶ 100
`
`(citing Ex. 2296)). Thus Patent Owner’s original request was not deficient in this
`
`regard. While Patent Owner has maintained its request to have Ex. 2258 sealed,
`
`upon further consideration, Patent Owner will not request that Exs. 2220, 2226,
`
`and 2286 be sealed. Public versions of Exs. 2220, 2226, and 2286 will be filed.
`
`As to the third-party confidential materials, in its Decision, the Board stated:
`
`“Patent Owner has neither demonstrated that [Exhibits 2267-2278, 2286 and 2294]
`
`contain proprietary information nor established its standing to assert the ‘interest’
`
`of a non-party third party in this proceeding.” Paper 58 at 9.5 Accordingly, as
`
`explained below, BioScience prepared a declaration authorizing Patent Owner to
`
`
`5 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 2267-2278 and 2294
`
`is proprietary and why. (Ex. 2346).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`request that these exhibits be filed under seal and providing additional information
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`supporting Patent Owner’s request. Upon further consideration, Patent Owner will
`
`not request that Ex. 2286 be sealed. A public version of Ex. 2286 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 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).
`
`IV.
`
`
`Identification of Confidential Information
`
` In this Second Motion to Seal, Patent Owner requests that three categories
`
`of exhibits be sealed as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” under the
`
`Stipulated Protective Order that the parties requested be entered on July 18, 2016.
`
`First, Patent Owner requests that excerpts of Patent Owner’s NDA (Exs. 2096,
`
`2102, 2103, 2110, 2251, 2291-22936) be sealed. As noted by the Board in its
`
`Decision, Patent Owner will provide a redacted version of Ex. 2096. Second,
`
`Patent Owner requests that the testimony of Tracy Valorie related to the market
`
`
`6 In its Decision of June 21, 2016, the Board noted that Ex. 2293 “lacks any
`
`content.” (Paper 58 at 7.) On June 24, 2016, by email, the Board informed the
`
`parties that the Board was able to access of the content of Ex. 2293 and agreed to
`
`consider the content of Ex. 2293 in any renewed motion to seal. (Ex. 2345.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`share of Patent Owner’s product in a related district court case (Ex. 2258) be sealed.
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`As noted by the Board in its Decision, Patent Owner will provide a redacted
`
`version of Ex. 2258. Likewise, Patent Owner requests that confidential portions of
`
`Ex. 2323, Reply Expert Report of John C. Jarosz on Objective Indicia of Non-
`
`Obviousness, from the related district court proceeding, be sealed. A redacted
`
`version of Ex. 2323 has already been filed. Third, Patent Owner requests that
`
`confidential testing reports and materials documenting the proprietary testing
`
`methods of third-party test company BioScience (Exs. 2267-2278, 2294) be sealed.
`
`BioScience has authorized Patent Owner to file redacted version of Ex. 2267. In
`
`addition, Patent Owner also requests that portions of the confidential versions of its
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23) and portions of confidential versions of
`
`Patent Owner’s expert declarations Exs. 2128 (Paulson), 2082 (Williams), 2116
`
`(Trattler), 2126 (Myers) and 2130 (Jarosz)) 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 three categories of exhibits and
`
`portions of its Response and supporting declarations citing or substantially
`
`describing those exhibits be sealed. As explained herein, good cause exists for
`
`sealing each category of information.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s NDA and Related Portions of Patent Owner’s
`Response, and the Williams, Trattler, Myers and Jarosz
`Declarations Should Be Sealed
`
`Patent Owner requests that certain excerpts from Patent Owner’s NDA (Exs.
`
`2102, 2103, 2110, 2251, 2291-2293) be sealed in their entirety, portions of Ex.
`
`2096 be sealed, and portions of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23), specifically
`
`pages 2-3, 46-48, and 50, the Declarations of Patent Owner’s experts, including:
`
`Dr. Myers (Ex. 2126), specifically paragraph nos. 12, 15-16, 18, and 22; Dr.
`
`Robert O. Williams (Ex. 2082), specifically: paragraph nos. 65, 178, 179, 202, 203,
`
`205, 206, 238 and 239 in IPR2015-01097; paragraph nos. 62, 176, 177, 192, 200,
`
`201, 203, 204, 236-238 in IPR 2015-01100; and paragraph nos. 61, 176-177, 200-
`
`201, 203-204, and 227-229 in IPR2015-01105; Dr. William Trattler (Ex. 2116),
`
`specifically paragraph nos. 16, 40, and 49-50; and Dr. Jarosz (Ex. 2130),
`
`specifically paragraph nos. 13, 18, 40, 50, 68, 81, 84, and 148, 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
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`available to the public. Patent Owner’s NDA was filed confidentially with the
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`FDA in order to obtain FDA approval to market its innovative pharmaceutical
`
`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, 2110, 2251, 2291-
`
`2293 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, 2126, 2130) describe the confidential information contained in the NDA or
`
`the ANDA. 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`information that should be protected from public disclosure. See Sandoz, Inc. v.
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`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 Exhibits 2096, 2102, 2103,
`
`2110, 2251, 2291-2293 and the portions of the Myers, Trattler, and Jarosz
`
`declarations that cite or substantially describe the NDA exhibits be sealed, as
`
`“PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL”, for the duration of this proceeding.
`
`Because Petitioner’s ANDA, portions of Patent Owner’s Response and the
`
`Williams declaration cite Ex. 2082 , Patent Owner requests that this pleading and
`
`exhibit be sealed, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL-BOARD’S EYES
`
`ONLY.” These exhibits will be refiled with this marking.
`
`B. Confidential Information in Testimony of Patent Owner’s Officer,
`the Related Portions of the Jarosz Declaration, and the Jarosz
`Reply Expert Report in the District Court Case Should Be Sealed
`
`
`
`Patent Owner requests that its confidential testimony of Ms. Valorie, an
`
`officer of Patent Owner’s parent company (Ex. 2258) related to Patent Owner’s
`
`commercial embodiment of the patent at issue and the portions of the Declaration
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Jarosz (Ex. 2130), specifically ¶¶ 13, 40, and 68,
`
`citing this testimony be sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. The testimony,
`
`specifically, at pages 7, 36, 153, 159, and 180, relates to market information related
`
`to its commercial embodiment of the Patents-at-Issue. Likewise, the Reply Expert
`
`Report of John C. Jarosz (Ex. 2323), specifically on pages 26 and 39, contains
`
`Patent Owner’s market information related to Patent Owner’s commercial
`
`embodiment of the Patents-at-Issue. Patent Owner and Dr. Jarosz rely on all of
`
`these materials to show Patent Owner’s commercial success. 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 the parties’ 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, Patent Owner requests that portions of Exhibits
`
`2258 and the portions of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23) and the Jarosz
`
`declaration (Ex. 2130) that cite or substantially describe these confidential
`
`presentation exhibits be sealed, as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL”, for the
`
`duration of this proceeding. These exhibits will be refiled with this marking.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`C. 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. 2267-2278, 2294) and the portions of the Declaration
`
`of Dr. Paulson (Ex. 2128), specifically paragraph nos. 10, 14, 17-18, and 20-25,
`
`citing these confidential documents 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. 2347), Exs. 2267-2278 and
`
`2294 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. Dr. Paulson relied on these materials to document
`
`preservative effectiveness testing that BioScience performed on samples of Patent
`
`Owner’s commercial product, in support of Dr. Williams’ opinions on objective
`
`evidence of non-obviousness. 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. 2267-2278 and 2294 be sealed. Id. at 2. A redacted version of Ex.
`
`2267 will be filed. But, the remaining documents contain confidential information
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`on all but one page, thus redaction is not practical. Id. at 3-11. Petitioner Lupin
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`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 2267-2278 and 2294, and the portions of Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`the Paulson declaration (Ex. 2128) that cite or substantially describe these
`
`confidential documents exhibits 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
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 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:
`
`Deborah Yellin
`DYellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`JLindsay@crowell.com
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`TRea@crowell.com
`
`Chiemi Suzuki
`CSuzuki@crowell.com
`
`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 M. Janusz
`Joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`Shannon Lentz
`SLentz@crowell.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`15