`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper: 90
`
` Entered: August 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., MYLAN INC.,
`LUPIN LTD., and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-009031
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Second Motion for
`Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-1871 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`
`In an Order dated June 21, 2016, the Board denied Patent Owner’s
`
`request to enter a Stipulated Protective Order. Paper 77. That same day, the
`
`Board denied without prejudice all pending motions to seal documents.
`
`Papers 77–80. On July 25, 2016, “Petitioners Innopharma and Lupin and
`
`Patent Owner Senju” jointly filed a Second Motion for Entry of a Stipulated
`
`Protective Order. Paper 81, 2 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). This Order addresses
`
`that Motion, which includes a copy of an Amended Proposed Stipulated
`
`Protective Order. Mot., App’x A (“Amended SPO”).
`
`The Motion shows how the Amended Stipulated Protective Order
`
`differs from the Board’s Default Protective Order. Mot., App’x B. The
`
`Board entered a Final Written Decision on July 28, 2016. Paper 83.
`
`Thereafter, the parties filed motions to seal documents under the terms of the
`
`Amended Stipulated Protective Order. See Papers 86, 88, 89. Concurrently
`
`herewith, we issue orders addressing those motions to seal.
`
`
`
`Procedural History of Request for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
`
`
`
`Previously, the Board determined that the proposed Stipulated
`
`Protective Order was “not in adequate form for entry.” Paper 77, 3. We
`
`identified three reasons for that determination. First, the proposed order
`
`recited “variations of the term ‘party’ with apparently different meanings.”
`
`Id. Second, we determined that a proposed category of confidential
`
`information—namely, “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL—FED R.
`
`EVID 615”—was not shown to be necessary, given that discovery had
`
`concluded. Id. Third, we recommended that, “rather than reciting that
`
`nothing in the proposed order ‘shall amend or alter the Stipulated Discovery
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`Confidentiality Order’ filed in” related district court litigation, any stipulated
`
`protective order entered by the Board should “apply only to the captioned
`
`proceedings.” Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Granting Entry of Amended Stipulated Protective Order
`
`The Motion proposes an Amended Stipulated Protective Order that
`
`addresses adequately each of the Board’s previous concerns. First,
`
`variations of the term “party” are omitted in favor of definitions that provide
`
`further clarification, including the “narrowly defined term ‘Non-Joinder
`
`Party’.” Mot. 2; see Amended SPO ¶¶ 2–3. Second, the category of
`
`confidential information designated as PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL—FED R. EVID 615 is removed “because this category is no
`
`longer necessary now that discovery has been completed.” Mot. 2–3; see
`
`Amended SPO ¶ 1. Third, the Amended Stipulated Protective Order does
`
`not include a “discussion of the Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order
`
`filed in the parallel district court litigation.” Mot. 3. See generally
`
`Amended SPO.
`
`Regarding the parties’ proposed designation of confidential
`
`information as Board Only (Amended SPO ¶ 3), the parties are advised that
`
`when documents are designated as Board Only in the Board’s filing system,
`
`access is limited to the Board. Any agreed-upon disclosure to other entities
`
`shall be the responsibility of the filing party.
`
`
`
`Because the Amended Stipulated Protective Order addresses our
`
`previous concerns, we determine that the Motion is in condition for
`
`allowance. Entry of a protective order is necessary because both parties seek
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`to seal documents alleged to reflect confidential information. See Papers 86,
`
`88, 89; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.54 (contemplating that a motion to seal shall
`
`include a proposed protective order). Accordingly, the Motion is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated
`
`Protective Order (Paper 81) is granted; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Proposed Stipulated
`
`Protective Order (Paper 81, App’x A) shall govern the disclosure of
`
`confidential information in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00903
`Patent 8,129,431 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jitendra Malik
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`Hidetada James Abe
`james.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph Janusz
`joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`
`Deborah Yellin
`dyellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`jLindsay@Crowell.com
`
`Shannon Lentz
`SLentz@Crowell.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bryan C. Diner
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Justin J. Hasford
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`