`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 46
`
` Entered: July 5, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ALTAIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARAGON BIOTECK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2015-00011
`Patent 8,859,623 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN and ZHENYU YANG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00011
`Patent 8,859,623 B1
`On May 6, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to seal portions of its Reply
`and Exhibit 1029, and Exhibits 1027, 1028, and 1030 in their entirety. Paper
`34, 1 (“Motion”). Patent Owner has not filed any opposition. Petitioner’s
`Motion is granted.
`According to Petitioner, it seeks to seal portions of the Reply that
`Patent Owner considers highly confidential. Id. at 1 (citing Paper 6, 2).
`Petitioner has filed a redacted version of the Reply. See Paper 34, 2. As
`explained previously and in the concurrently issued Decision on Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Seal, we have determined that Patent Owner has shown
`good cause for sealing confidential and sensitive information related to
`Patent Owner’s financial matters that is not publicly available. Paper 12, 1;
`Paper 45, 2. The redactions to Petitioner’s Reply appear to be limited to
`isolated passages that consist of similar Patent Owner’s confidential
`information. The redactions would not inhibit a reader’s understanding of
`the substance of the Petitioner’s position. Thus, upon considering the
`content of the Reply, we determine that good cause exists for sealing the
`redacted portions of the Reply.
`Petitioner also argues that good cause exists for sealing portions of
`Exhibit 1029, and Exhibits 1027, 1028, and 1030 in their entirety. Paper 34,
`2–4. According to Petitioner, information contained therein “reflects
`proprietary and confidential testing methodologies developed by Petitioner.”
`Id. at 2. Petitioner asserts that these testing methods have not been
`published or otherwise made public, and the disclosure thereof would harm
`Petitioner’s interest. Id. at 3–4. Even though Petitioner has not filed any
`testimonial evidence to support its Motion, we are persuaded that the
`exhibits themselves bear sufficient markings that evince their confidentiality.
`See, e.g., Ex. 1027, 1 (“This document contains information that is
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00011
`Patent 8,859,623 B1
`privileged, confidential and is protected from disclosure under applicable
`law. This document is the sole property of Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.”).
`In addition, Petitioner contends that the Board does not need the
`detailed information Petitioner seeks to seal to make the patentability
`determination in this proceeding. Id. at 4. Further, Petitioner has filed a
`redacted version of Exhibit 1029, redacting only specific information related
`to the testing methodologies. Id. at 3.
`Upon considering the content of Exhibits 1027–1030, along with
`Petitioner’s representations as to the confidentiality of the information
`contained therein, we determine that Petitioner has shown good cause for
`sealing the redacted portions of Exhibit 1029 and Exhibits 1027, 1028, and
`1030 in their entirety.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dipu A. Doshi
`Jonathan W. S. England
`Mark J. Thronson
`BLANK ROME LLP
`DDoshi@BlankRome.com
`JWEngland@BlankRome.com
`MThronson@BlankRome.com
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2015-00011
`Patent 8,859,623 B1
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
