throbber
Paper No. __
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket