`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B. BRAUN MELSUNGEN AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: IPR2017-01587
`Patent No. 9,149,626
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01587
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`Petitioner Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD” or “Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Motion to Seal.
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, Petitioner Becton, Dickinson & Company hereby moves for leave to file
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument under seal.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`The parties have conferred and agreed to the provisions of the Protective
`
`Order set forth in Exhibit 2027 and have stipulated to be bound to the terms set
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01587
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`forth therein. Exhibit 2028 shows the proposed modifications from the Board’s
`
`Default Protective Order, to which the parties have stipulated, in redline.
`
`Here, Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument describes certain
`
`documents that Petitioner has designated as PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL,
`
`indicating that they contain or reflect confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or
`
`commercially sensitive information. Petitioner’s confidential documents largely
`
`consist of product development, technical, and market analysis documents. These
`
`materials contain detailed information about Petitioner’s process for designing and
`
`developing products and confidential technical details of those products. They also
`
`contain detailed information about Petitioner’s market and competitor analysis.
`
`Petitioner’s interest in protecting its confidential business information outweighs
`
`the public’s interest in viewing that information. See Garmin, Paper 36 at 9
`
`(finding that the public’s interest in having access to a party’s confidential business
`
`information, not related to patent validity, is “minimal”). Furthermore, Petitioner
`
`is seeking to seal only portions of Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner is submitting a redacted, public version of Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstratives for Oral Argument. Based on Petitioner’s designations, there is
`
`good cause to seal Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`
`IPR2017-01587
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`The undersigned counsel certifies the information sought to be sealed by this
`
`Motion to Seal has not, to their knowledge, been published or otherwise made
`
`public. Petitioner made efforts to maintain the confidentiality of this information
`
`in a related district court proceeding. In that district court proceeding, much of the
`
`information that Petitioner presently moves to seal was produced pursuant to a
`
`Protective Order agreed upon by the Parties and was designated
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to that Protective
`
`Order.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`grant its motion to seal.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 19, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Heather M. Petruzzi/
` Heather M. Petruzzi (71,270)
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
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
