`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01343
`Patent RE46,116
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUED
`SEALING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`submits this Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Continued Sealing, requesting
`
`that the following information remain under seal: portions of Petitioner’s Motion
`
`for Additional Discovery: Motion for Leave to Subpoena Non-Party Witnesses,
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, and Exhibits 1755, 1758, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769,
`
`1770, 1774, 1775, 1806, 1821, 1822, 1830, 1850, and 1851. The under-seal
`
`version of Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery, along with Exhibits 1758,
`
`1760, 1761, 1768, and 1774, were filed by Petitioner on July 1, 2021; the under-
`
`seal versions of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1755, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1770,
`
`1775, 1806, 1821, 1822, 1830, 1850, and 1851 were filed on August 6, 2021.
`
`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, 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`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).
`
`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 Petitioner’s Motion for Additional
`Discovery: Motion for Leave to Subpoena Non-Party Witnesses
`
`Petitioner has filed under-seal its Petitioner’s Motion for Additional
`
`Discovery: Motion for Leave to Subpoena Non-Party Witnesses, as well as a
`
`public, redacted version of this Paper. The redacted portions on pages 4, 5, and 6
`
`of Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery contain confidential Patent Owner
`
`research, development, and testing information. Patent Owner has designated this
`
`information as confidential under the protective order in the parallel district court
`
`case Vascular Solutions, LLC, et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., 0:19-cv-01760 PJS-
`
`TNL (D. Minn.).
`
`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.
`
`3
`
`
`
`There is good cause for keeping the redacted information contained in
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery: Motion for Leave to Subpoena Non-
`
`Party Witnesses under seal. Publicly revealing the sensitive, competitive
`
`information could put the parties at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner does not oppose this information remaining under seal.
`
`B. Under-Seal Version of Petitioner’s Reply
`Petitioner has filed under-seal its Petitioner’s Reply, as well as a public,
`
`redacted version of this Paper. The redacted portions on pages 5, 19-21, 26-27, 38,
`
`and 42 of Petitioner’s Reply contain confidential Patent Owner information related
`
`to the development of Patent Owner’s GuideLiner products. Patent Owner has
`
`designated this information as confidential under the protective order in the parallel
`
`district court case Vascular Solutions, LLC, et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., 0:19-cv-
`
`01760 PJS-TNL (D. Minn.).
`
`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
`
`Petitioner’s Reply under seal. Publicly revealing the sensitive, competitive
`
`4
`
`
`
`information could put the parties at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner does not oppose this information remaining under seal.
`
`C. Exhibits 1758, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774,
`1775, 1821, 1822, 1850, and 1851: Development-Related
`Documents
`Exhibits 1758, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1775, 1821,
`
`1822, 1850, and 1851, filed under seal, are development documents related to the
`
`development of Patent Owner’s GuideLiner products. These development
`
`documents include laboratory notebook pages, the transcript from the June 20,
`
`2018 deposition of Gregg Sutton, the transcript from the October 30, 2019
`
`deposition of Amy Welch in the parallel district court litigation, the transcript from
`
`the June 27, 2013 deposition of Howard Root in Vascular Solutions, Inc. v. Boston
`
`Scientific Corporation, the transcript from the June 15, 2018 deposition of Howard
`
`Root in QXMedical, LLC v. Vascular Solutions, LLC, et al, a concept drawing,
`
`product requirements, R&D ideas, and an internal R&D work order. These
`
`documents were produced and/or 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. 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`There is good cause for keeping Exhibits 1758, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767,
`
`1768, 1769, 1770, 1774, 1775, 1821, 1822, 1850, and 1851 under seal. Publicly
`
`revealing the development information related to the GuideLiner products
`
`described above could put Patent Owner at a competitive disadvantage in the
`
`marketplace. Additionally, Petitioner does not oppose this information remaining
`
`under seal.
`
`D. Exhibits 1755, 1806, and 1830
`Petitioner has filed under-seal Exhibits 1755, 1806, and 1830; as well as
`
`public, redacted versions of these Exhibits. The redacted portions on pages 42, 44-
`
`47, 50, 57-64, 67-76, 81-83, 86, 88-97, and 105 of the Declaration of Paul Zalesky
`
`Regarding Conception and Reduction to Practice (Ex-1755), pages 17 and 62 of
`
`the Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Brecker (Ex-1806), and pages 14 and 18 of
`
`the Declaration of Paul Zalesky Regarding Copying (Ex-1830) contain confidential
`
`Patent Owner information related to the development of Patent Owner’s
`
`GuideLiner products. Patent Owner has designated this information as confidential
`
`under the protective order in the parallel district court case Vascular Solutions,
`
`LLC, et al v. Medtronic, Inc. et al., 0:19-cv-01760 PJS-TNL (D. Minn.).
`
`All of this information fits squarely within the kinds of information that the
`
`Trial Practice guide considers to be “confidential information,” such as
`
`6
`
`
`
`“confidential research, development, or commercial information.” 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48760.
`
`There is good cause for keeping the redacted information contained in the
`
`Exhibits 1755, 1806, and 1830 under seal. Publicly revealing the sensitive,
`
`competitive information could put the parties at a disadvantage in the marketplace.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner does not oppose this information remaining under seal.
`
`II. Certification of Conference
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.54(a), Patent Owner certifies that it has in good
`
`faith conferred with Petitioner’s counsel. Petitioner’s counsel does not oppose this
`
`motion to seal.
`
`Both Petitioner 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 for
`
`Continued Sealing, 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 for Continued Sealing, and keep the following documents under seal: the
`
`under-seal, unredacted versions of the Petitioner’s Motion for Additional
`
`7
`
`
`
`Discovery: Motion for Leave to Subpoena Non-Party Witnesses, Petitioner’s
`
`Reply, and Exhibits 1755, 1758, 1760, 1761, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1774,
`
`1775, 1806, 1821, 1822, 1830, 1850, and 1851.
`
`
`Dated: September 24, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on September 24, 2021, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR CONTINUED
`
`SEALING 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`