Paper: 71
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Entered: September 15, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)1
`Case IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)2
`Case IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)3
`____________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER4
`Granting Second Motion for
`Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00089 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2016-00091 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Case IPR2016-00090 has been joined with this proceeding.
`4 This Order addresses issues common to each proceeding; therefore, we
`enter the identical order in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
` Entered: September 15, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUPIN LTD., LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)1
`Case IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)2
`Case IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)3
`____________
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
`GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER4
`Granting Second Motion for
`Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-00089 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2016-00091 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Case IPR2016-00090 has been joined with this proceeding.
`4 This Order addresses issues common to each proceeding; therefore, we
`enter the identical order in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`In an Order dated June 21, 2016, the Board denied Patent Owner’s
`
`request to enter a Stipulated Protective Order. Paper 58.5 That same day,
`the Board denied without prejudice all pending motions to seal documents.
`Papers 58–62. On July 18, 2016, the parties filed a Second Motion for Entry
`of a Stipulated Protective Order. Paper 64 (“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.
`On July 29, 2016, each party filed a Motion to Seal under the terms of
`the Amended Stipulated Protective Order. See Papers 65, 68. Further, on
`August 1, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Second Renewed Motion to Seal. See
`Paper 69. Concurrently herewith, we issue orders addressing those motions.
`The Board entered a Final Written Decision on September 12, 2016.
`Paper 70.
`
`Procedural History of Request for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
`Previously, the Board determined that the proposed Stipulated
`
`Protective Order was “not in an adequate form for entry.” Paper 58, 3. We
`identified three reasons for that determination. First, the proposed protective
`order recited “variations of the term ‘party’ with apparently different
`meanings.” Id. Second, we determined that a proposed category of
`
`
`5 The parties attest that a “word-for-word identical paper” was filed in each
`proceeding. Mot. 1 n.4. For convenience, we refer to papers filed in
`IPR2015-01097.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`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
`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 5.
`
`
`
`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. 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,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`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
`to seal documents alleged to reflect confidential information. See Papers 65,
`68, 69; 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 Second Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective
`
`Order is granted in each proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order (Mot., App’x A) shall govern the disclosure of confidential
`information in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01097 (Patent 8,754,131 B2)
`IPR2015-01100 (Patent 8,927,606 B1)
`IPR2015-01105 (Patent 8,871,813 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Deborah Yellin
`Jonathan Lindsay
`Teresa Rea
`Shannon Lentz
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`DYellin@crowell.com
`JLindsay@crowell.com
`trea@crowell.com
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`Jitendra Malik
`Bryan Skelton
`Lance Soderstrom
`Hidetada James Abe
`Joseph Janusz
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`bryan.skelton@alston.com
`lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`james.abe@alston.com
`joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Bryan Diner
`Justin Hasford
`Joshua Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
