UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VIII, LLC
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01836
`
`Patent No. 7,932,268
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VIII, LLC
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01836
`
`Patent No. 7,932,268
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54, Patent Owner, The Trustees of the
`
`University of Pennsylvania (“Patent Owner”), respectfully moves to seal portions of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045 and 1053, which contain confidential
`
`business information of Patent Owner. A redacted copy of Exhibit 1053 is being
`
`filed herewith. This motion is being filed within 30 days of the March 6, 2017
`
`Order Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and
`
`42.54 (Paper 57) (“the Order”). Pursuant to the Order, the Motion for Entry of the
`
`default protective order into the proceedings was also entered.
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`In determining whether to grant a Motion to Seal, the Board must find “good
`
`cause” and “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a); 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`As described in the Office Trial Practice Guide, the Board 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. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045 and 1053 contain confidential business
`
`information of Patent Owner (and of Aegerion, Inc., the exclusive licensee of the
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`patent under review in this proceeding) regarding development of lomitapide by
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”). Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045
`
`and 1053 contain confidential information regarding BMS drug development
`
`strategy that is non-public and proprietary to Patent Owner and BMS. Exhibit
`
`1053 additionally contains detailed information regarding the methodology of and
`
`summary results from a clinical study conducted by BMS on lomitapide that is non-
`
`public and proprietary to Patent Owner. Patent Owner has an interest in keeping
`
`this business information confidential because it is sensitive, competitive business
`
`information. Again, the public’s interest in accessing this information for the
`
`purposes of the patentability of the challenged claims in this proceeding is
`
`outweighed by the Patent Owner’s interest in maintaining confidential, proprietary
`
`business information.
`
`Petitioner has previously submitted both confidential and redacted versions
`
`of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit 1045. Further, Patent Owner is submitting
`
`herewith a redacted version of Exhibit 1053. The proprietary data and information
`
`contained in Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045 and 1053 is not essential to an
`
`understanding of the issues in the Petitioner’s Reply and related exhibits. Indeed,
`
`the only information not reflected in the redacted versions of these exhibits is the
`
`data described above, to wit, the precise clinical patient data or confidential
`
`business information proprietary to the Patent Owner or BMS. In contrast, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`public disclosure of this information requires the Patent Owner to disclose
`
`proprietary, confidential information. Accordingly, good cause exists to seal the
`
`confidential patient data and business confidential information contained in
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045 and 1053.
`
`The Board did not substantively rely on these documents in its Final Written
`
`Decision.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests that the Board seals the
`
`unredacted versions of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045 and 1053.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`
`
`To the undersigned counsel’s knowledge, the information sought to be sealed
`
`by this motion was inadvertently made public via Petitioner’s filing of Exhibit 1053 as
`
`publicly available as opposed to “Board and Parties only.” Petitioner e-mailed the Board
`
`on March 21, 2017 requesting an appropriate correction. The information sought to be
`
`sealed by this motion has not been published or otherwise made public, except via
`
`the inadvertent filing of Exhibit 1053.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`Petitioner did not file an opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal as
`
`filed on June 7, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THEREFORE, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William G. James /
`William G. James
`Registration No. 55,931
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202.346-4000
`Fax: 202-346-4444
`
`Dated: April 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL was served electronically via e-mail on April 5,
`
`2017 on the following:
`
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Christopher Casieri
`McNeely, Hare & War LLP
`12 Roszel Road, Suite C104
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`(609) 731-3668
`chris@miplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Coalition
`for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Russell Warnick /
`Russell Warnick
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`April 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
