`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`QUALICAPS CO., LTD,
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`____________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner and Petitioner jointly move to seal evidence produced
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`pursuant to the Board’s order on Petitioner’s motion for additional
`
`discovery. Paper 35, 8. In particular, Patent Owner was ordered to file and
`
`serve (a) the complete transcript of the deposition of Mr. Masaru Tanjoh
`
`taken by Petitioner on March 22, 2017 in related district court litigation, and
`
`(b) “the documents relating to the experiments, data, and statements in Mr.
`
`Tanjoh’s Declaration (Ex. 1010, 105–108) that were marked as exhibits” at
`
`the deposition. Id.
`
`II. CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS FROM LITIGATION
`The confidentiality designations used in this proceeding reflect those
`
`defined in the protective order from the related district court litigation
`
`Allergan Sales, LLC, and Qualicaps Co., Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01740-JRG-RS (consolidated with Case No.
`
`2:15-cv-01741-JRG-RS for certain purposes), a copy of which is filed in this
`
`proceeding as Exhibit 2063.
`
`The “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” designation is governed
`
`as follows from the district court litigation protective order:
`
`A Party shall designate documents, information or material as
`“CONFIDENTIAL” only upon a good faith belief that the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`
`documents, information or material contains confidential or
`proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third
`Party to whom the Party reasonably believes it owes an
`obligation of confidentiality with respect to such documents,
`information or material.
`Ex. 2063, 4–5.
`
`The “RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and
`
`“RESTRICTED – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designations
`
`are governed as follows from the district court litigation protective order:
`
`To the extent a producing Party believes that certain Protected
`Material qualifying to be designated CONFIDENTIAL is so
`sensitive that its dissemination deserves even further limitation,
`the producing Party may designate such Protected Material
`“RESTRICTED
`-- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or
`“RESTRICTED - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
`The designation of “RESTRICTED - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’
`EYES ONLY” shall be used for documents, information, or
`material relating to sales by Qualicaps Co., LTD and licensing
`agreement made by Qualicaps Co., LTD, including license
`agreements between Qualicaps Co. LTD and Warner Chilcott
`(US) and/or Warner Chilcott Co. and license agreements
`between Qualicaps Co. LTD and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`Inc., as well as documents or information that a Party believes
`in good faith contains information the disclosure of which is
`
`2
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`
`highly likely to cause significant harm to an individual or to the
`business or competitive position of the Producing Party,
`including, for example, highly sensitive business and financial
`information, highly sensitive
`research and development
`information, unpublished patent applications, and information
`related to whether or when to commercialize or attempt to
`commercialize any drug product. For the avoidance of doubt, a
`Defendant’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”), a
`Plaintiff’s New Drug Application
`(“NDA”),
`FDA
`correspondence related to said ANDA or NDA, and other
`technical information shall be designated “RESTRICTED --
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” not “RESTRICTED - OUTSIDE
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Notwithstanding any other
`provision of this order, expert reports (and drafts of said expert
`reports that are in good faith intended to be served on an
`opposing party), pleadings or other documents served on either
`party (but not exhibits thereto containing RESTRICTED –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Protected Material)
`shall not be designated RESTRICTED – OUTSIDE
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.
`Ex. 2063, 5–6.
`
`III. DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`A. Masaru Tanjoh March 22, 2017 Deposition Transcript
`The deposition transcript is submitted as IPR Exhibit No. 2064 in both
`
`redacted and non-redacted versions. Portions of the deposition transcript
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`were designated with the following confidentiality designations:
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`PROTECTIVE-ORDER MATERIAL: 35:6-39:17; 42:11-20;
`
`43:21-46:19; 47:6-53:5; 54:15-57:1; 57:18-60:4; 61:20-63:20; 78:18-
`
`95:14; 96:4-105:3; 111:20-129:2; 154:20-155:9; 156:3-157:2; 199:4-
`
`201:21; 208:17-209:15; 211:9-214:20; 216:15-221:22; 222:11-225:8;
`
`235:13-237:18; 238:21-239:18.
`
`RESTRICTED--ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY: 168:14-180:17;
`
`182:1-199:5; 203:2-207:1; 207:11-208:16; 214:21-216:14; 226:12-
`
`229:13; 237:19-238:10; 239:19-247:20.
`
`RESTRICTED--OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY:
`
`129:3-131:20; 153:19-154:12; 157:3-22; 158:1-15; 159:5-9; 161:11-
`
`167:14; 225:9-226:11; 229:20-235:12.
`
`Each page of the deposition transcript containing material having a
`
`confidentiality designation has been marked with
`
`the highest-level
`
`designation of material on that page and redacted in the redacted version.
`
`B. Deposition Exhibits
`Petitioner asked the Patent Owner to produce the following deposition
`
`exhibits having confidentiality designations (“AEO” means “Attorneys’
`
`Eyes Only”):
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`IPR
`exhibit
`no.
`2067
`
`Deposition
`exhibit No.
`
`13
`
`2068
`
`2069
`2070
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`Description
`
`Japanese document, Bates No.
`QCDELZ_00000146
`English document headed
`“Addendum,” Bates No.
`QCDELZ_00000261
`Handwritten notes dated 6/3/98 AEO
`Cover page titled “Hardcopy
`AEO
`1646,” with one page attached
`Japanese document, Bates Nos.
`QCDELZ_00000001
`to QCDELZ_00000012
`Cover page titled “Hardcopy
`0661,” with Bates Nos.
`QCDELZ_00000235 to
`QCDELZ_00000238 attached
`
`Confidentiality
`level designated
`in litigation
`AEO
`
`AEO
`
`AEO
`
`AEO
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s assertion that these exhibits
`
`“relat[e] to the experiments, data, and statements” in Mr. Tanjoh’s
`
`prosecution history declaration but agrees to produce them in order not to
`
`prolong this discovery dispute. Patent Owner does not concede the
`
`admissibility of this evidence in the present proceeding. Patent Owner
`
`reserves the right to lodge objections against Petitioner’s use of this evidence.
`
`Because the entirety of each deposition exhibit listed above is sealed
`
`at the indicated confidentiality level, redacted versions would be devoid
`
`entirely of information, would serve no public purpose, and are not
`
`submitted.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`Protective Order
`C.
`The parties to this proceeding propose a protective order that is
`
`modified from the Board’s default protective order to add the additional
`
`confidentiality designations. The proposed modified protective order is filed
`
`as Exhibit 2073. A markup showing changes from the Board’s default
`
`protective order is filed as Exhibit 2074.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO SEAL EVIDENCE
`Petitioner does not challenge Patent Owner’s confidentiality
`
`designations for purposes of the present proceeding. The parties stipulate
`
`for purposes of the present proceeding that Patent Owner complied with the
`
`conditions described above for making
`
`the various confidentiality
`
`designations for the deposition transcript and the deposition exhibits. These
`
`documents are sealed at the indicated confidentiality levels in the related
`
`district court litigation, and the parties agree that it is in the best interests of
`
`the parties concerned to maintain the status quo by sealing the same
`
`evidence to the same extent in the present proceeding. The parties stipulate
`
`on this basis that good cause exists to seal this evidence.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the parties ask the Board to grant the
`
`motion to seal.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2017
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Scott E. Kamholz/
`Jessica L. Parezo, Reg. No. 50,286
`Andrea G. Reister, Reg. No. 36,253
`Scott E. Kamholz, Reg. No. 48,543
`Michael N. Kennedy, pro hac vice
`Megan P. Keane, pro hac vice
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth St., NW
`Washington DC 20001
`
`MaryAnne Armstrong, Reg. No. 40,069
`Lynde F. Herzbach, Reg. No. 74,886
`Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Rd, Ste 100 East
`Falls Church VA 22042
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
` //D. Clay Holloway w/e/p
`Mitchell G. Stockwell, Reg. No. 39,389
`D. Clay Holloway, Reg. No. 58,011
`Jonathan D. Olinger, pro hac vice
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`Patent 6,649,180 B1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Joint Motion to Seal
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I certify that on the date listed below, a
`
`copy of this paper was served on the petitioner at the address listed below by
`
`email to Mylan-WC-IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com on the following counsel
`
`of record for Petitioner:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`D. Clay Holloway
`Jonathan D. Olinger
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2017
`
`
`
` /Scott E. Kamholz/
`Scott E. Kamholz, Reg. No. 48,543
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
