Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 16
`
`
` Entered: April 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STEADYMED LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 16
`
`
` Entered: April 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`STEADYMED LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner’s Unredacted Preliminary Response (Paper 10), as
`well as Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, were filed under seal. Patent
`Owner concurrently submitted a Motion to File under Seal. Paper 7. In that
`Motion, Patent Owner avers that the parties have agreed to the Default
`Protective Order in the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012). Id. Because we declined to rule on Patent
`Owner’s Motion to File under Seal when we issued our Decision to Institute
`(Paper 12), that Decision was likewise sealed, pending submission by the
`parties of agreed redactions to the Decision. Patent Owner’s Motion to File
`under Seal remains pending, and the above identified documents remain
`provisionally sealed.
`In correspondence of April 13, 2016, Petitioner states that the parties
`jointly seek entry of the Default Protective Order. In addition, Petitioner
`notes that PRPS access to Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is presently
`restricted to Patent Owner and the Board, and requests that the PRPS
`confidentiality access settings be updated to grant Petitioner access to those
`documents. Petitioner also seeks authorization to supply the Decision to
`Institute (Paper 12), the Unredacted Preliminary Response (Paper 10), and
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 to its expert, Dr. Jeffrey Winkler, who
`has executed the Default Protective Order. Petitioner further requests a five
`business day extension for filing objections to Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005,
`and 2006. Petitioner reports that Patent Owner assents to the requested
`extension, but not Petitioner’s remaining requests.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`
`
`
`We decline to decide Patent Owner’s Motion to File under Seal at this
`time; however, documents filed under seal will remain provisionally sealed.1
`To facilitate the parties’ access to information filed under seal, we grant the
`parties’ request for entry of the Default Protective Order. In so doing, we
`note that the confidentiality designation for sealed information subject to the
`protective order should permit access to that information by the parties and
`the Board, rather than limiting access to only the filing party and the Board.
`Accordingly, we also grant Petitioner’s request that the PRPS confidentiality
`designations for Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006, as well as for Patent
`Owner’s Unredacted Preliminary Response, be changed to parties and
`Board. We observe that entry of the Default Protective Order and
`amendment of the PRPS confidentiality designations should resolve
`Petitioner’s request regarding access to the presently sealed documents by
`Dr. Winkler. Lastly, we grant Petitioner’s request, agreed to by Patent
`Owner, for a five business day extension to the deadline for objecting to
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
`
`
`
`
`1 We remind the parties that pursuant to our April 8, 2016 Order on the
`Conduct of the Proceeding (Paper 14), if a response as to which portions of
`the Decision to Institute should remain under seal is not received by
`April 28, 2016, the Decision to Institute will be made available to the public
`in its entirety. In addition, any purportedly confidential information
`discussed in the Final Determination will be made public upon issuance of
`that decision. See the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48760–48761 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the parties’ request for entry of the Default Protective
`Order, attached as Appendix A to Paper 7, to govern the treatment and filing
`of confidential information in this proceeding, is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the PRPS confidentiality access settings
`for the Unredacted Preliminary Response (Paper 10) and Exhibits 2003–
`2006 shall be updated to parties and Board; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for a five business
`day extension to file objections to Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 is
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00006
`Patent 8,497,393 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Stuart E. Pollack
`Lisa A. Haile
`DLA Piper LLP
`stuart.pollack@dlapiper.com
`lisa.haile@dlapiper.com
`steadymed-ipr@dlapiper.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`George Quillin
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`smaebius@foley.com
`gquillin@foley.com
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORP.
`ssnader@unither.com
`
`Douglas Carsten
`Richard Torczon
`Robert Delafield
`WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`bdelafield@wsgr.com
`
`5
`
`
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
