UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00126
`Patent 8,048,032 B2
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00126
`Patent 8,048,032 B2
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits this Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal, requesting that
`
`the following information remain under seal: portions of Patent Owner’s Response,
`
`as well as Exhibits 2139, 2140, 2141, 2153, 2154, 2197, 2198, 2201, and 2202,
`
`filed therewith. The under-seal version of the Patent Owner Response, along with
`
`the identified under-seal exhibits, are being filed concurrently with this motion.
`
`Patent Owner has conferred with the Petitioner, and the Petitioner does not
`
`oppose this motion to seal.
`
`In conjunction with the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses, the Patent
`
`Owner and Petitioner agreed to and submitted a stipulated Joint Protective Order.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board enter that stipulated Joint
`
`Protective order in the above captioned case to govern treatment of the documents
`
`and information identified herein.
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause
`
`For good cause, the Board may “issue an order to protect a party or person
`
`from disclosing confidential information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. 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.” Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Each of the sets of information below meets this standard, and for the
`
`reasons explained there is good cause for why those documents should remain
`
`under seal.
`
`A. Under-Seal Version of Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Patent Owner has filed an under-seal Patent Owner Response and a public,
`
`redacted version of that Response. The redacted portions on pages 45, 47, 50, and
`
`53 contain confidential Patent Owner sales data regarding GuideLiner revenue and
`
`units sold, as well as reflect licensing strategy. The remaining redacted portions
`
`reflect information that Petitioner Medtronic has designated as confidential under
`
`the district court protective order governing the parties in parallel litigation in the
`
`District of Minnesota.
`
`All of this information fits squarely within the kinds of information that the
`
`Trial Practice guide considers to be “confidential information,” such as
`
`“confidential research, development, or commercial information.” 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48760.
`
`There is good cause for keeping the redacted information contained in Patent
`
`Owner’s Response under seal. Publicly revealing the sensitive, competitive
`
`information could put the parties at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 2139-2141: Engineering Drawings
`
`Exhibits 2139, 2140, and 2141, filed as protective order material, are
`
`documents that were designated confidential in the case of QXMédical, LLC v.
`
`Vascular Solutions, LLC, et al., 0:17-cv-01969-PJS-TNL (D. Minn.). These
`
`documents contain confidential information about Patent Owner’s product design
`
`and manufacture specifications. This information fits squarely within the kinds of
`
`information that the Trial Practice guide considers to be “confidential
`
`information,” such as “confidential research, development, or commercial
`
`information.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760.
`
`There is good cause for Patent Owner’s confidential product design and
`
`manufacture specifications under seal. Publicly revealing the sensitive,
`
`competitive information would put Patent Owner at a disadvantage in the
`
`marketplace.
`
`C. Exhibits 2197, 2198, 2201, 2202: Petitioner Medtronic
`Confidential Documents
`
`Exhibits 2197-2199, 2201 and 2202, filed under seal, are documents
`
`
`
`produced by Petitioner Medtronic in the parallel District of Minnesota ligation and
`
`designated as confidential under the protective order in that case. These
`
`documents describe Petitioner Medtronic’s product development and marketing.
`
`Because Petitioner has designated these documents as confidential under the
`
`District of Minnesota protective order, it appears that there is good cause for
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`keeping these documents under seal. Presumably, publicly revealing the
`
`information Petitioner Medtronic has designated as confidential could put
`
`Petitioner Medtronic at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`D. Exhibit 2153: Under Seal Declaration of Steve Jagodzinski
`
`Exhibit 2153 is the under seal, unredacted version of the Declaration of
`
`Steve Jagodzinski. Patent Owner has also filed a public, redacted version of this
`
`exhibit at Exhibit 2152. The under seal, redacted portions of Mr. Jagodzinski’s
`
`declaration summarize and discuss confidential, internal, proprietary data
`
`regarding GuideLiner revenue, units sold, and licensing strategy. This information
`
`fits squarely within the kinds of information that the Trial Practice guide considers
`
`to be “confidential information,” such as “confidential research, development, or
`
`commercial information.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760.
`
`There is good cause for keeping the redacted information contained in
`
`Exhibit 2153 under seal. Publicly revealing the commercially sensitive
`
`information noted above would put Patent Owner at a competitive disadvantage in
`
`the marketplace.
`
`E.
`
`Exhibit 2154: Confidential GuideLiner Revenue/Units Sold Data
`
`Exhibit 2154, filed under seal, is consists of internal, confidential,
`
`proprietary data showing GuideLiner revenue and units sold. This information fits
`
`squarely within the kinds of information that the Trial Practice guide considers to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`be “confidential information,” such as “confidential research, development, or
`
`commercial information.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760.
`
`There is good cause for keeping Exhibit 2154 under seal. Publicly revealing
`
`the commercially sensitive information noted above would put Patent Owner at a
`
`competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`II. Certification of Conference
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.54(a), Patent Owner certifies that it has in good
`
`faith conferred with Petitioners’ counsel. Petitioners’ counsel does not oppose this
`
`motion to seal.
`
`Both Petitioners and Patent Owner agree to abide by the parties’ stipulated
`
`Protective Order pending a decision by the Board on the motion for entry thereof.
`
`III. Request for Conference Call with the Board
`
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Unopposed Motion to
`
`File Under Seal, Patent Owner hereby requests a conference call with the Board to
`
`discuss any concerns prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this Unopposed
`
`Motion to File Under Seal, and keep the following documents under seal: the
`
`under-seal, unredacted version of the Patent Owner Response, and Exhibits 2139,
`
`2140, 2141, 2153, 2154, 2197, 2198, 2201, and 2202.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 1, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email:
`DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on October 1, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54 was served via electronic mail
`
`upon the following:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/J. Derek Vandenburgh/
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`
`
`
`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
