`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 15
` Entered: January 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01143
`Patent 9,539,218 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Acting Deputy Chief
`Administrative Patent Judge, RAMA G. ELLURU and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01143
`Patent 9,539,218 B2
`
`
` INTRODUCTION
`On October 22, 2018, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed
`a Motion to Seal Exhibits 1066–1068. Paper 9. In that Motion, Petitioner
`requested entry of a Stipulated Protective Order. Id. at 1. On November 30,
`2018, we granted Petitioner’s motion for entry of the Stipulated Protective
`Order, but denied without prejudice the motion to seal the exhibits because
`Petitioner did not sufficiently explain how the redacted claim construction
`arguments in Exhibits 1066–1068 could cause Petitioner “business-related
`competitive harm.” Paper 12, 1.
`In response to our decision, Petitioner refiled Exhibits 1066–1068
`with fewer redactions and a public redacted version of the Surreply (Paper
`10). Petitioner also filed a renewed motion to seal the redacted portions of
`Exhibits 1066–1068 and Paper 11. Paper 14 (“Ren. Mot.”). Bayer
`Intellectual Property GmbH (“Patent Owner”) did not file an opposition to
`the Renewed Motion.
`For the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Renewed
`Motion.
`
` ANALYSIS
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Petitioner, as the moving party, has the burden of proof
`in showing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The
`Board has a strong interest in the public availability of the proceedings.
`Accordingly, our rules aim to “strike a balance between the public’s interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history and the parties’
`interest in protecting truly sensitive information.” Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01143
`Patent 9,539,218 B2
`Petitioner renews its request to seal the redacted portions of Exhibits
`1066–1068 (“the Exhibits”) and the Surreply because the unredacted
`versions of the Exhibits were submitted under seal in the copending district
`court case and are governed by the protective order in that case. Ren. Mot.
`1–2. Petitioner contends that the redacted portions contain confidential
`litigation positions that would cause Petitioner irreparable competitive harm
`if disclosed to Petitioner’s competitors. Id. at 2.
`Although we remain skeptical that such claim construction arguments
`amount to business confidential information, we are cognizant that the
`information is sealed in the district court case and governed by the protective
`order in that case. Moreover, we did not rely on the redacted information in
`our Decision Denying Institution, thereby minimizing the public’s interest in
`the redacted information. See Paper 13.
`Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has established good cause to
`seal the redacted portions of the Exhibits and the Surreply pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order until the documents are made public or
`expunged from the record. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
` CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has established
`good cause to seal the redacted portions of Exhibits 1066–1068 and the
`Surreply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01143
`Patent 9,539,218 B2
`
` ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Seal Exhibits 1066–
`1068 and Paper 11 is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of Exhibits
`1066–1068 and the Surreply shall remain under seal pursuant to the
`Stipulated Protective Order until the documents are made public or
`expunged from the record.
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Parmelee
`Michael Rosato
`Jad Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dov Grossman
`Ben Picozzi
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`dgrossman@wc.com
`bpicozzi@wc.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
