throbber
Trials @uspto.gov Paper 35
`571-272-7822
` Entered: February 10, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AVENTIS PHARMA S.A.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`____________
`
`Before BRIAN P. MURPHY, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`On Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On December 23, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal Exhibits
`2149 (portions of ¶ 29), 2170, 2171, 2176 (portions of ¶¶ 47, 164), 2179,
`2182, and 2211, and a Motion for entry of a Stipulated Protective Order.
`Paper 24 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Patent Owner additionally filed redacted
`versions of Exhibit 2149 (“Public Tate Declaration”) and Exhibit 2176
`(“Public Sartor Declaration”) that are accessible to the public. Patent Owner
`also submitted, as Appendix A of the Motion, a proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order that differs from the Board’s default Protective Order.
`Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the Motion. Counsel for Patent
`Owner certifies that he has conferred with counsel for Petitioner and the
`parties have agreed to the entry of the Stipulated Protective Order in this
`proceeding. Mot. 8.
`The record for an inter partes review shall be made available to the
`public, except as otherwise ordered, and a document filed with a motion to
`seal shall be treated as sealed until the motion is decided. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. The standard for granting a motion to seal is
`“good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. There is a strong public policy that favors
`making information filed in inter partes review proceedings open to the
`public. See Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, Case IPR2012-
`00001, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34) (discussing Board
`standards applied to motions to seal). The moving party bears the burden of
`showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`Satisfaction of the burden requires a showing that the information is truly
`confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public
`interest in having an open record. See Garmin at 3.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the instant case, Patent Owner asserts that the documents to be
`sealed include highly sensitive business information pertaining to (i) market
`share of treatments for prostate cancer post-docetaxel, including Jevtana®
`(Exs. 2149, 2170, 2171, and 2179), and (ii) confidential clinical research
`information (Exs. 2176, 2182, and 2211). Mot. 3–7. Patent Owner further
`asserts that, if made public, the aforementioned highly sensitive business
`information could cause competitive harm to Patent Owner by giving direct
`competitors knowledge of Patent Owner’s business, marketing, and clinical
`research operations. Id.
`After consideration of the Motion, the sealed and redacted (public)
`documents, and the proposed Stipulated Protective Order, Patent Owner’s
`Motion is granted. We are persuaded that Patent Owner has demonstrated
`good cause for keeping the identified information under seal, because it
`relates to highly sensitive and confidential business information of Patent
`Owner that could cause competitive harm to Patent Owner. Patent Owner
`has filed public versions of Exhibits 2149 (Tate Declaration) and 2176
`(Sartor Declaration) with appropriately limited redactions (Ex. 2149 ¶ 29;
`Ex. 2176 ¶¶ 47, 164) so as to provide the thrust of Patent Owner’s argument,
`without compromising the underlying confidential business information.
`The proposed modifications to the Board’s default Protective Order are
`minor and tailored to the parties’ particular needs in this proceeding.
`The parties are reminded that confidential information subject to a
`protective order ordinarily becomes public 45 days after final judgment in a
`trial. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Col.
`1) (Aug. 14, 2012). There is an expectation that information will be made
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`
`public where the existence of the information is identified in a final written
`decision following a trial. Id. After final judgment in a trial, a party may
`file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record prior to
`the information becoming public. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion is granted and that Patent
`Owner shall file the Stipulated Protective Order as a paper in this
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the following Exhibits shall be sealed as
`“Parties and Board Only”: Exhibits 2149 (Confidential Tate Declaration),
`2170, 2171, 2176 (Confidential Sartor Declaration), 2179, 2182, and 2211.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner has filed the identified exhibits as “Filing Party and Board
`Only.” Upon entry of the Stipulated Protective Order, Patent Owner shall
`change the filing status of the identified exhibits to “Parties and Board
`Only.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00712
`Patent 8,927,592 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`Matthew R. Reed
`Wendy L. Devine
`Nellie J. Amjadi
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`mreed@wsgr.com
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`namjadi@wsgr.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dominic A. Conde
`Whitney L. Meier
`FITZPATRICK CELLA HARPER & SCINTO
`dconde@fchs.com
`wmeier@fchs.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`

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