`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126
`IPR2020-00128
`IPR2020-00129
`IPR2020-00132
`IPR2020-00134
`IPR2020-00135
`IPR2020-00137
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioners submit this
`
`Unopposed Motion to File Under Seal, requesting that the following information
`
`and documents remain sealed: portions of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice, portions of Exhibit
`
`1755 (Declaration of Paul Zalesky Submitted in Support of Petitioners’ Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Response Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice), and
`
`Exhibits 1108/1308/1708,1 1114/1314/1714,2 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1765,
`
`1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1775, 1778, 1779, 1782, 1783, 1786, 1787, 1788,
`
`1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, and 1793 filed in support. Petitioners file the under-seal
`
`version of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response Addressing Conception
`
`and Reduction to Practice, the under-seal version of Exhibit 1755, and the
`
`identified under-seal exhibits with this motion.
`
`Petitioners conferred with Patent Owner, and Patent Owner does not oppose
`
`this motion.
`
`In conjunction with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses, Petitioners and
`
`
`1 In IPRs -126 / -128 / -132 / -135 / -137: Ex-1108. In IPR -129: Ex-1308. In IPR -
`
`134: 1708.
`
`2 In IPRs -126 / -128 / -132 / -135 / -137: Ex-1114. In IPR -129: Ex-1314. In IPR -
`
`134: 1714.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner agreed to and submitted a stipulated Joint Protective Order.
`
`Petitioners request that the Board enter that stipulated Joint Protective Order in the
`
`above-captioned cases to govern treatment of the information and documents
`
`identified herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`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(a). “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.” Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, at 19 (Nov. 2019 ed.).
`
`The documents subject to this motion contain confidential information and,
`
`thus, qualify for protection, and for the reasons explained below, there is good
`
`cause to keep the documents sealed.
`
`A. Under-Seal Version of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice
`
`Petitioners file an under-seal version of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`Response Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice and a public, redacted
`
`version of that Reply. The redacted portions discuss Patent Owner’s confidential
`
`information, specifically, information related to Patent Owner’s product
`
`development, product design, marketing, and related efforts and strategies. Patent
`
`2
`
`
`
`Owner has designated this information as confidential under the protective order
`
`governing the parallel district court litigation in the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Minnesota. This information qualifies as “confidential information”
`
`under the Trial Practice Guide.
`
`Because Patent Owner has designated this information as confidential under
`
`the district court protective order, it appears that there is good cause to keep the
`
`redacted information under seal. Presumably, publicly revealing the information
`
`that Patent Owner has designated as confidential could put Patent Owner at a
`
`competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`
`
`B. Under-Seal Version of Ex. 1755 (Declaration of Paul Zalesky)
`
`Petitioners file an under-seal version of Exhibit 1755 and a public, redacted
`
`version of that exhibit. The redacted portions discuss Patent Owner’s confidential
`
`information, specifically, information related to Patent Owner’s product
`
`development, product design, marketing, and related efforts and strategies. Patent
`
`Owner has designated this information as confidential under the protective order
`
`governing the parallel district court litigation in the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Minnesota. This information qualifies as “confidential information”
`
`under the Trial Practice Guide.
`
`Because Patent Owner has designated this information as confidential under
`
`the district court protective order, it appears that there is good cause to keep the
`
`3
`
`
`
`redacted information under seal. Presumably, publicly revealing the information
`
`that Patent Owner has designated as confidential could put Patent Owner at a
`
`competitive disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`C. Exhibits 1108/1308/1708, 1114/1314/1714, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761,
`1763, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1775, 1778, 1779, 1782,
`1783, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, and 1793: Patent
`Owner Confidential Documents
`
`
`Exhibits 1108/1308/1708, 1114/1314/1714, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763,
`
`1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1775, 1778, 1779, 1782, 1783, 1786, 1787,
`
`1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, and 1793, filed under seal, are documents produced
`
`and designated confidential under the protective order by Patent Owner in the
`
`parallel district court litigation in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Minnesota. These documents describe Patent Owner’s product development,
`
`product design, marketing, and related efforts and strategies.
`
`Because Patent Owner has designated these documents as confidential under
`
`the district court protective order, it appears that there is good cause to keep these
`
`documents under seal. Presumably, publicly revealing the information that Patent
`
`Owner has designated as confidential could put Patent Owner at a competitive
`
`disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`
`
` Certification of Conference
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.54(a), Petitioners certify that they, in good faith,
`
`4
`
`
`
`conferred with Patent Owner. Patent Owner does not oppose this motion.
`
`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.
`
`
`
` Request for Conference Call with the Board
`
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant this Unopposed Motion to File
`
`Under Seal, Petitioners request a conference call with the Board to discuss any
`
`concerns prior to the Board issuing a decision on the motion.
`
`
`
` Conclusion
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant this Unopposed Motion
`
`to File Under Seal and keep the following information and documents under seal:
`
`portions of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response Addressing Conception
`
`and Reduction to Practice, portions of Exhibit 1755 (Declaration of Paul Zalesky
`
`Submitted in Support of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Addressing Conception and Reduction to Practice), and Exhibits 1108/1308/1708,
`
`1114/1314/1714, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770,
`
`1774, 1775, 1778, 1779, 1782, 1783, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792,
`
`and 1793 filed in support.
`
`
`Dated: December 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on December 17, 2020, a copy of PETITIONERS’
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL was served in its entirety by
`
`electronic mail on Patent Owner’s counsel at the following addresses indicated in
`
`Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`J. Derek Vandenburgh, Reg. No. 32,179
`dvandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Dennis C. Bremer, Reg. No. 40,528
`dbremer@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Joseph W. Winkels
`jwinkels@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Tara C. Norgard
`tnorgard@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Alexander S. Rinn
`pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Megan E. Christner, Reg. No. 78,979
`mchristner@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dated: December 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`