`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APOTEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,049,328 B2
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2017-01446
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioner Taro Pharmaceuticals
`
`USA, Inc. respectfully requests that the Board seal (1) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel
`
`Routine Discovery, or in the Alternative, for Additional Discovery (“the Motion”),
`
`(2) Exhibits 1037-1045 and 1047-1049 that accompany the Motion, and (3) Exhibit
`
`1036, which is a transcript of the March 23, 2018 telephone conference in which the
`
`parties and the Board discussed the Motion.
`
`The parties have conferred and agreed to the provisions of the Modified
`
`Default Standing Protective Order set forth in Exhibit 1051, and have stipulated to be
`
`bound by its terms. Ex. 1050 shows the proposed modifications from the Default
`
`Standing Protective Order to which the parties have stipulated, in redline. The
`
`Modified Default Standing Protective Order provides:
`
`A party may file documents or information with the Board under seal,
`
`together with a non-confidential description of the nature of the
`
`confidential information that is under seal and the reasons why the
`
`information is confidential and should not be made available to the
`
`public. The submission shall be treated as confidential and remain
`
`under seal, unless, upon motion of a party and after a hearing on the
`
`issue, or sua sponte, the Board determines that the documents or
`
`information do not to qualify for confidential treatment.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1051 (Modified Default Standing Protective Order).)
`
`The Motion refers to information contained in Exhibits 1037-1045 and 1047-
`
`1049, which are documents that Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc. has
`
`designated as Highly Confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered
`
`in the concurrent district court case, ApoPharma Inc. v. Taro Pharmaceutical
`
`Industries, Ltd., Case No. 2:16-cv-00528 (E.D.Tex.). Petitioner therefore filed the
`
`Motion under seal, along with a publicly-available redacted version of the Motion.
`
`Petitioner also filed Exhibits 1036-1045 and 1047-1049 under seal.
`
`Good Cause Exists for Sealing the Documents
`
`I.
`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 with the
`
`Board to seal confidential information that is protected from disclosure. See Garmin
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 34 (PTAB Mar.
`
`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 26(c)(1)(G), which
`
`provides for protective orders for trade secret or other confidential research,
`
`development, or commercial information.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner is filing a Motion to Compel Routine Discovery, or in the
`
`Alternative, for Additional Discovery, which refers to materials that Patent Owner
`
`has designated as “Highly Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order filed
`
`in the concurrent district court case. Those materials are being filed with the Motion.
`
`(Exs. 1037-1045 and 1047-1049.) Petitioner is seeking to seal these documents and
`
`the Motion, and based on Patent Owner’s designation in the ongoing district court
`
`litigation, there is good cause to seal these documents.
`
`Petitioner is also filing Exhibit 1036, which is the transcript of the telephonic
`
`conference in which the parties and the Board discussed the Motion. Patent Owner
`
`designated that transcript as confidential, and there is therefore good cause to seal
`
`this document.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`By:
`/Huiya Wu/
`Huiya Wu (Reg. No. 44,411)
`Sarah Fink (Reg. No. 64,886)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York NY 10018
`hwu@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Date: April 16, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that, on April 16, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing materials: PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL to be served via
`
`electronic mail on the following attorneys of record:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`/Sarah Fink/
`Sarah Fink (Reg. No. 64,886)
`
`
`
`W. Blake Coblentz
`Aaron S. Lukas
`Barry Golob
`
`Email:
`wcoblentz@cozen.com
`alukas@cozen.com
`bgolob@cozen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
