`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S 2ND MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, United Therapeutics Corporation (“Patent
`
`Owner”) hereby submits this 2ND Motion to Seal a portion of Exhibit 2052 (the
`
`block quote in par. 104), which contains an excerpt from a confidential Exhibit
`
`(EX2062 at p. 20) that is the subject of Patent Owner’s first Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper No. 27).
`
`I. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “the 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.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). These
`
`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.” Id. (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.54).
`
`As explained in the first Motion to Seal (Paper No. 27), good cause exists
`
`to support the sealing of the Exhibits 2062-2064, which were produced in a
`
`litigation (United Therapeutics Corp. v. Sandoz, Inc., Civ. No. 14-cv-05499) as
`
`confidential documents and remain under seal. These exhibits were also filed
`
`under a motion to seal in IPR2017-01621 & 01622 (Paper Nos. 41 and 42,
`
`respectively), and the Board granted the motion to seal in those proceedings
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Paper Nos. 49 and 50, respectively) where they were previously labeled Exhibits
`
`2049-2051. Exhibits 2062-2064 describe information on protocols, procedures,
`
`and data submitted to and held in confidence by the FDA in relation to the
`
`approval of Tyvaso®. Such information could be improperly used by competitors
`
`to gain unfair business and competitive advantage with customers in the
`
`marketplace, including using details of Patent Owner’s process for competitive
`
`commercial products.
`
`The Board has granted a Motion to Seal certain exhibits in their entireties
`
`for similar reasons in Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00377,
`
`paper no. 62 at 4-6, (PTAB March 17, 2015), where “Patent Owner avers that the
`
`‘highly confidential nature of’ the information contained in those documents
`
`makes it ‘impossible to reasonably redact [them] for public disclosure.’” Id. at 4.
`
`As noted, the Board previously granted a motion to seal these same exhibits in
`
`their entireties in IPR2017-01621 & 01622.
`
`EX2052 in par. 104 cites a portion of EX2062 from p. 20, so that portion
`
`of EX2052 should be sealed. Patent Owner has concurrently filed a redacted,
`
`public version of EX2052 where only that portion of par. 104 from EX2062 is
`
`redacted.
`
`II. Certification of Non-Publication
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner, undersigned counsel certifies that, to the best
`
`3
`
`
`
`of their knowledge, the information sought to be sealed by this Motion to Seal
`
`has not been published or otherwise made public. Efforts to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of this information have been undertaken by Patent Owner in
`
`the related proceedings noted above.
`
`III. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`Patent Owner has conferred with Petitioner about both the PTAB’s Default
`
`Protective Order and motion to seal relating to Patent Owner’s confidential
`
`information, and the Parties have agreed to be bound by the PTAB’s Default
`
`Protective Order. Per Appendix B of the Trial Practice Guide, the Default
`
`Protective Order is not being separately filed.
`
`IV. Protective Order
`The confidential information will be subject to the Default Protective Order
`
`from the Trial Practice Guide, to which the parties have agreed to be bound in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`For the reasons stated above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`portion of par. 104 in EX2052 discussed above remain under seal.
`
`Date: Nov. 10, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20007
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01621
`Patent 9,358,240
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing 2ND MOTION
`
`TO SEAL, is being served on Nov. 10, 2021 by filing this document through the
`
`PTAB E2E System as well as delivering copies via email to the following counsel
`
`for the Petitioner:
`
`
`
`zLiquidiaIPR@cooley.com
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`emilch@cooley.com
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`ssukduang@cooley.com
`
`/Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`4874-0028-8003.1
`
`6
`
`
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
