`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`U.S. Patent No. 9,919,024
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`Introduction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, Patent Owner, Bausch Health Ireland Limited
`
`(“Patent Owner” or “Bausch”), hereby requests that certain confidential information
`
`in the record be expunged for the reasons set forth below.
`
`Specifically, Bausch respectfully requests that the following paper and
`
`document currently under seal be expunged from the record as this paper and
`
`document contain Bausch’s highly confidential information:
`
`• Exhibit 2013: Final Clinical Study Report SP304101-08 (excerpt)
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`• Paper 7: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`II. Applicable Legal Standards
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56 provides that following “denial of a petition to institute a
`
`trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge
`
`confidential information from the record.” Similarly, the Trial Practice Guide states
`
`“[t]here is an expectation that information will be made public where the existence
`
`of the information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute a
`
`review or is identified in a final written decision following trial.” 2019 Office
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 at 21-22. However, the Trial Practice Guide also
`
`states that a party “seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information . . . may
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`file a motion to expunge the information from the record prior to the information
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`becoming public.” Id. A party seeking expungement from the record must show
`
`good cause by demonstrating “that any information sought to be expunged
`
`constitutes confidential information, and that [a party’s] interest in expunging it
`
`outweighs the public’s interest in maintain a complete and understandable history of
`
`this inter partes review.” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 97 at (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015).
`
`III. Good Cause Exists to Expunge Exhibit 2013 and Paper 7 from the Record
`In this proceeding, the Board granted Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Exhibit
`
`2013 (excerpts of Patent Owner’s New Drug Application 208745), and the portions
`
`of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (on pages 10, 64, and 65) “that cite or
`
`substantially describe” the content of Exhibit 2013. Paper 15 at 22. In its Order, the
`
`Board concluded “that Patent Owner has established good cause to seal its
`
`confidential information” and granted its Motion to Seal. Paper 15 at 21-22.
`
`Redacted versions of the now-sealed Exhibit 2013 and Paper 7 were provided
`
`and are currently available to the public. Specifically, the following table
`
`summarizes the confidential, sealed documents (left column) and the corresponding
`
`redacted versions that are currently publicly available (right column):
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`Sealed Document
`
`Redacted Version of Document
`
`Ex. 2013: Final Clinical Study Report
`
`Ex. 2013: Final Clinical Study Report
`
`SP304101-08 (excerpt) CONFIDENTIAL
`
`SP304101-08 (excerpt) PUBLIC
`
`Paper 7: Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Paper 8: Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (CONFIDENTIAL)
`
`Response (Public Version)
`
`As set forth in Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal, the highly confidential, now-
`
`
`
`
`
`sealed documents contain information from Bausch’s NDA 208745, which was filed
`
`confidentially with the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in order to obtain
`
`FDA approval to market Bausch’s Trulance® drug product. Further, the Board’s
`
`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. 2019 Office
`
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 19. The Board has accordingly recognized that
`
`New Drug Applications and Abbreviated New Drug Applications contain
`
`confidential commercial information that should be protected from public
`
`disclosure. See Sandoz Inc. v. EKR Therapeutics, LLC, IPR2015-00005, Paper 21
`
`(PTAB Apr. 24, 2014).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner submits that it would be placed in a competitive and strategic
`
`disadvantage should the confidential information related to its New Drug
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Application become public. Additionally, redacted versions of the highly
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`confidential documents have been filed publicly in the present proceeding. These
`
`redacted versions “maintain the essence” of non-confidential material contained
`
`within the paper and document and thus allow the public to “maintain[] a complete
`
`and understandable history” of the present proceeding. Atlanta Gas Light, Paper 97
`
`at 2-3. The Board also did not cite anything exclusively in the confidential
`
`documents in its decision denying institution of the inter partes review. See
`
`generally Paper 15. Accordingly, the public interest would be served by maintaining
`
`the confidentiality of this information.
`
`
`
`Therefore, good cause exists to expunge Exhibit 2013 and Paper 7.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the above reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`protect Patent Owner’s highly confidential information and expunge Exhibit 2013
`
`and Paper 7 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`
`V. Request for Call with the Board
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Expunge,
`
`Patent Owner hereby requests a conference call with the Board to discuss any
`
`concerns prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 13, 2023
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Justin J. Hasford/
`Justin J. Hasford, Reg. No. 62,180
`Lead Counsel
`Bryan C. Diner, Reg. No. 32,409
`Back-up Counsel
`Joshua L. Goldberg, Reg. No. 59,369
`Back-up Counsel
`Kassandra M. Officer Reg. No. 74,083
`Back-up Counsel
`Lauren J. Robinson Reg. No. 74,100
`Back-up Counsel
`Caitlin E. O’Connell, Reg. No. 73,934
`Back-up Counsel
`Kyu Yun Kim, Reg. No. 72,783
`Back-up Counsel
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`(202) 408-4000
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2022-01104
`Patent No. 9,919,024
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Expunge Confidential Information were served electronically via email
`
`on February 13, 2023 to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Jad A. Mills
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
`1700 K Street N.W., 5th Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Nicole W. Stafford
`Dennis D. Gregory
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway, Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746-5546
`nstafford@wsgr.com
`dgregory@wsgr.com
`
`4876-6223-0546@mail.vault.netdocuments.com
`
`
`
`By: /Geneva Eaddy/
`Geneva Eaddy
`Case Manager
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`Date: February 13, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`