`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Celltrion, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Genentech, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 6,407,213
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01373
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER CELLTRION’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioner Celltrion, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`respectfully requests that the Board seal portions of Petitioner Celltrion’s Amended
`
`Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude Evidence, filed herewith. The portions
`
`of Petitioner Celltrion’s Amended Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude
`
`Evidence that Petitioner seeks to seal reflect information that Patent Owner has
`
`marked Confidential pursuant to the Modified Default Standing Protective Order.
`
`I.
`
` Good Cause Exists for Sealing the Documents
`Although “the default rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review
`
`are open and available for access by the public,” a party may file a motion to seal
`
`confidential information that is protected from disclosure. Garmin v. Cuozzo,
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 34 (PTAB March 14, 2013). “The standard for
`
`granting a motion to seal is ‘for good cause.’” Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R § 42.54).
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012), states that the “rules identify confidential information in a manner
`
`consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(c)(1)(G), which
`
`provides for protective orders for trade secret or other confidential research,
`
`development, or commercial information.”
`
`Petitioner is filing portions of Petitioner Celltrion’s Amended Reply in
`
`Support of its Motion to Exclude Evidence under seal, as it specifically relies on
`
`and describes Exhibits that Patent Owner has designated as “PROTECTIVE
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`ORDER MATERIAL” pursuant to the Modified Default Standing Protective Order
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`entered by the Board (Paper 17 at 3; Ex. 2030). A redacted version of Petitioner
`
`Celltrion’s Amended Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude Evidence has been
`
`publicly filed. Based on Patent Owner’s designations, there is good cause to seal
`
`the designated information.
`
`II. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54
`
`The parties have conferred, and Patent Owner does not oppose this motion.
`
`THEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`Motion to Seal.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /
`
` Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Robert V. Cerwinski (admitted pro hac vice)
`Linnea P. Cipriano (Reg. No. 67,729)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`Sarah J. Fischer (Reg. No. 74,104)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA, 02210
`(617) 570-3908 (telephone)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`(617) 801-8991 (facsimile)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 19th day of July, 2018, I
`
`caused a copy of this PETITIONER CELLTRION’S MOTION TO SEAL by email
`
`on the lead and back up counsel for Patent Owners at:
`
`David Cavanaugh (David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lauren V. Blakely (lauren.blakely@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Robert Gunther (Robert.Gunther@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Adam Brausa (abrausa@durietangri.com)
`
`Daralyn Durie (ddurie@durietangri.com)
`
`Andrew Danford (Andrew.Danford@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Lisa Pirozzolo (Lisa.Pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com)
`
`Kevin Prussia (Kevin.Prussia@wilmerhale.com)
`
`By: /Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
