`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`Apotex Technologies, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,049,328 B2
`
`Title: USE FOR DEFERIPRONE
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01446
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioner Taro Pharmaceuticals
`
`U.S.A., Inc. respectfully requests that the Board seal portions of Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`The Reply refers to materials that Patent Owner Apotex Technologies, Inc. has
`
`designated as Confidential “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” pursuant to the
`
`Modified Default Standing Protective Order (Ex. 1051).1
`
` 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 with the
`
`Board 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 its Reply under seal, as well as a publicly available redacted
`
`version of this document. The redacted portions of the document describe certain
`
`
`1 The Board entered the stipulated Modified Default Standing Protective Order on
`
`May 11, 2018. (Paper 34 at 3.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`documents already filed and served in this proceeding and designated by Patent
`
`Owner as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” pursuant to the Modified Default
`
`Standing Protective Order entered by the Board (Ex. 1051, see supra n.1). Because
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing a publicly available redacted version of the
`
`document, it is seeking to seal only the limited portions of the document that
`
`references information deemed by Patent Owner to be PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48761
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (noting that parties are encouraged “to redact sensitive information,
`
`where possible, rather than seeking to seal entire documents”). Based on Patent
`
`Owner’s designations, and the Board’s prior finding of good cause to seal the
`
`designated information (Paper 37), there is good cause to seal the designated
`
`information here.
`
`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.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: June 13, 2018
`
`/s/ Huiya Wu
`Huiya Wu (Reg. No. 44,411)
`Robert V. Cerwinski (to seek pro hac vice
`admission)
`Sarah Fink (Reg. No. 64,886)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Fax: (212) 355-3333
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 13th day of June, 2018,
`
`I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing “PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO SEAL” to be served via electronic mail on the following attorneys of
`
`record:
`
`W. Blake Coblentz
`Aaron S. Lukas
`Barry Golob
`
`
`Email:
`wcoblentz@cozen.com
`alukas@cozen.com
`bgolob@cozen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ryan Curiel
` Ryan Curiel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
