`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 133
`Entered: March 9, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)1
`____________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, JON B. TORNQUIST, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`1 This Order addresses overlapping issues in the above-captioned cases. We
`issue one order for all cases. We cite to papers in IPR2020-00126 as
`representative, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting-in-part Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal
`Denying-in-part Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14, 42.54
`A. Background
`We previously granted Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s unopposed
`Motions to Seal various papers and exhibits in each of the above-captioned
`proceedings, finding that the information identified by both parties was
`confidential. See IPR2020-00126, Paper 128. We also ordered the parties to
`review the Final Written Decisions “to verify if any confidential information
`is mentioned” and, if so, to “meet and confer in good faith, and submit joint
`proposed redacted versions of the Decisions.” Id. at 7–8.
`In each of the above-captioned proceedings, Petitioner filed motions
`to seal the Board’s Final Written Decisions2 and submitted sealed and
`redacted versions for each of the Final Written Decisions. See id. at Paper
`129. Petitioner states that Patent Owner does not oppose the Motions. See
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 134, 1.
`B. Whether There is Good Cause to Seal
`“In an inter partes review, the moving party bears the burden of
`showing that the relief requested should be granted.” Argentum Pharms,
`
`
`2 See IPR2020-00126, Paper 131; IPR2020-00127, Paper 110; IPR2020-
`00128 , Paper 134; IPR2020-00129, Paper 132; IPR2020-00130, Paper 108;
`IPR2020-00132, Paper 132; IPR2020-00134, Paper 129; IPR2020-00135,
`Paper 133; IPR2020-00136, Paper 109; IPR2020-00137, Paper 135;
`IPR2020-00138, Paper 111 (“Motions”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)
`
`LLC v. Alcon Research, LTD, IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 2 (PTAB Jan. 19,
`2018) (informative) (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)). A party moving to seal
`must show “good cause” for the relief requested. Id. “Good cause” may be
`established by (1) providing a sufficient explanation as to why the
`information sought to be sealed is confidential information,
`(2) demonstrating that the information is not excessively redacted, and
`(3) showing that, on balance, the strong public interest in maintaining a
`complete and understandable record is outweighed by the harm any
`disclosure may have on a party and the need of either party to rely on the
`identified information. Id. at 3–4 (citing Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., IPR2012-00001, Paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) and Corning
`Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440,
`Papers 43, 47, 49 (PTAB April 6, 14, and 17, 2015, respectively)).
`Petitioner contends that the redacted portions of the Final Written
`
`Decisions in the above-captioned cases “discuss Patent Owner’s confidential
`information, specifically, information related to Patent Owner’s product
`development, product design, marketing, and related efforts and strategies.”
`IPR2020-00126, Paper 134, 1–2. Upon review of the identified information,
`we agree that there is good cause to seal the Final Written Decisions in
`IPR2020-00127 (Paper 105), IPR2020-00130 (Paper 103), and IPR2020-
`00136 (Paper 104).
`
`We note, however, that the Final Written Decisions in IPR2020-00126
`(Paper 127), IPR2020-00128 (Paper 127), IPR2020-00129 (Paper 125),
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)
`
`IPR2020-00132 (Paper 125), IPR2020-00134 (Paper 122), IPR2020-00135
`(Paper 126), IPR2020-00137 (Paper 128), and IPR2020-00138 (Paper 104)
`do not appear to include confidential information, and the redacted and
`public versions of the Final Written Decisions appear to be identical. See
`e.g., IPR2020-00126, Papers 127, 129. Moreover, Petitioner’s Motions do
`not identify any specific information in these Decisions that it contends is
`confidential. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that there is good cause
`to seal the Final Written Decisions in IPR2020-00126, IPR2020-00128,
`IPR2020-00129, IPR2020-00132, IPR2020-00134, IPR2020-00135,
`IPR2020-00137, and IPR2020-00138. Thus, we provisionally deny the
`Motions as to these proceedings. See Argentum, IPR2017-01053, Paper 27
`at 2 (“in an inter partes review, ‘the default rule is that all papers . . . are
`open and available for access by the public.’”).
`To the extent that Petitioner believes that good cause exists to seal the
`unredacted Final Written Decisions, it may file, within two weeks of this
`Order, Motions to show good cause for sealing the relevant papers. The
`Final Written Decisions will remain under seal while such Motions are
`pending, or until the expiration of the two-week period for filing the Motion
`for good cause.
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Seal the Final Written
`Decisions in IPR2020-00127 (Paper 105), IPR2020-00130 (Paper 103), and
`IPR2020-00136 (Paper 104) are granted;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Seal the Final
`Written Decisions in IPR2020-00126 (Paper 127), IPR2020-00128 (Paper
`127), IPR2020-00129 (Paper 125), IPR2020-00132 (Paper 125), IPR2020-
`00134 (Paper 122), IPR2020-00135 (Paper 126), IPR2020-00137 (Paper
`128), and IPR2020-00138 (Paper 104), are provisionally denied without
`prejudice; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may file, within two weeks of
`this Order, Motions to show good cause why the relevant Final Written
`Decisions should remain under seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032), IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032),
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380),
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380), IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760),
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760), IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776),
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776), IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379),
`IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Cyrus Morton
`Sharon Roberg-Perez
`Christopher Pinahs
`William E. Manske
`Emily J. Tremblay
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`wmanske@robinskaplan.com
`etremblay@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Derek Vandenburgh
`Dennis Bremer
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH & LINDQUIST, P.A.
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`6
`
`