`
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00136
`U.S. Patent No. RE 45,776
`______________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`______________________________
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, portions of Exhibit 1755, 1806, 1807, and 1830 (Declarations of
`
`Stephen Jon David Brecker, Mike Jones, and Paul Zalesky), and Exhibits 1114-
`
`1115, 1819, and 1821-1823. Petitioners file the under-seal version of Petitioners’
`
`Reply, the under-seal version of Exhibits 1114-1115, 1819, and 1821-1823, and the
`
`Declarations of Stephen Jon David Brecker, Mike Jones, and Paul Zalesky 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
`
`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.
`
`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(a). “The rules
`
`identify confidential information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`Petitioners file an under-seal version of Petitioners’ Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response 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 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`B. Under-Seal Version of Exhibits 1755, 1806, 1807, and 1830
`(Declarations of Stephen Jon David Brecker, Mike Jones, and
`Paul Zalesky)
`
`Petitioners file under-seal versions of Exhibits 1755, 1806, 1806, and 1830 and
`
`public, redacted versions of those exhibits. 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, as well as deposition testimony regarding the same. 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
`
`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 1114-1115, 1819, and 1821-1823: Patent Owner
`
`Confidential Documents
`
`Exhibits 1114-1115, 1819, and 1821-1823, filed under seal, are documents
`
`produced and designated confidential under the protective order by Patent Owner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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.
`
`II. Certification of Conference
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.54(a), Petitioners certify that they, in good faith,
`
`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.
`
`III. 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.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board grant this Unopposed Motion
`
`to File Under Seal and keep the following information and documents under seal:
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`portions of Petitioners’ Reply, portions of Exhibit 1755, 1806, 1807, and 1830
`
`(Stephen Jon David Brecker, Mike Jones, and Paul Zalesky), and Exhibits 1114-
`
`1115, 1819, and 1821-1823 filed in support.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 21, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on December 21, 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
`
`Dated: December 21, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Cyrus A. Morton/
`Cyrus A. Morton
`
`Reg. No. 44,954
`Attorney for Petitioners
`
`1
`
`