(cid:3)
`
`Filed on behalf of Ecolab USA Inc.
`
`By: Anthony R. Zeuli, Reg. No. 45,255
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`3200 IDS Center
`80 South 8th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel:
`(612) 371-5208
`Fax: (612) 332-9081
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SOLENIS LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOLAB USA INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01281
`Patent 8,465,623
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SEAL
`EXHIBITS 2002-2004, 2010-2011, PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 2007-2008
`AND PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION1
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1 Portions of the publicly-filed version of this document are redacted to maintain
`confidentiality of the same information addressed in the original Motion to Seal
`and the exhibits at issue, for the same reasons cited in that Motion and herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Ecolab USA Inc.
`
`By: Anthony R. Zeuli, Reg. No. 45,255
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`3200 IDS Center
`80 South 8th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel:
`(612) 371-5208
`Fax: (612) 332-9081
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SOLENIS LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ECOLAB USA INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01281
`Patent 8,465,623
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SEAL
`EXHIBITS 2002-2004, 2010-2011, PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 2007-2008
`AND PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION1
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`1 Portions of the publicly-filed version of this document are redacted to maintain
`confidentiality of the same information addressed in the original Motion to Seal
`and the exhibits at issue, for the same reasons cited in that Motion and herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`Exhibits 2002, 2007-2008, and 2010-2011 include (1) declarations
`
`describing confidential communications and testing conducted jointly by Nalco
`
`and a third party under NDA, and (2) communications among counsel that include
`
`very limited redactions describing that same testing.2 These declarant and counsel
`
`statements include exactly the kind of business and technical information
`
`contemplated to remain confidential in these proceedings. See Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012) (describing trade
`
`secret, confidential research, development, or commercial information as
`
`protectable).
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal mischaracterizes
`
`these exhibits in an attempt to portray them as non-confidential. Petitioner does not
`
`dispute, however, that Dr. Dyer received confidential information, or that the
`
`exhibits remaining at issue describe the nature of that confidential information and
`
`the manner in which it was received. Petitioner also does not challenge that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`2 In its Opposition, Petitioner concedes that EX2003 and EX2004 should be
`maintained as confidential by the Board; Patent Owner therefore does not further
`address those exhibits here, except to the extent relevant to Petitioner’s challenge
`to the confidentiality of information in EX2002, EX2007-2008, and EX2010-2011.
`Patent Owner requests that its Motion be granted as to EX2003-2004 as well.
`
`1
`
`
`
`in the declarations and correspondence are and remain confidential. Because
`
`disclosure of this information would cause great harm, Patent Owner requests that
`
`*—l13"(D $$9«-9 (DB(D 5«-r»U‘
`
`its Motion to Seal be granted.
`
`A.
`
`The Information at Issue Is Confidential.
`
`F‘!XN c c N
`
`3 Patent Owner sealed EX2002 entirely, but would file a redacted copy with those
`sections public if the Board decides that ‘fill, 3-4 should be public.
`
`2
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Rather, r)6amaR 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`it is exactly the kind of technical and business information contemplated to remain
`
`confidential under the NDAs, and before the Board. See Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide at 48,760; Garmin Int’l., Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2012-0001, Paper 36 at 8-9.
`
`Not only is the information included in EX2002 confidential, Petitioner
`
`provides no legal precedent for asserting that this information is not confidential,
`
`no explanation of why disclosure would be “harmless,” and no explanation of a
`
`need for publication of these details other than to provide a “complete record” for
`
`the public. Opp. at 3. To the contrary,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2010-2011: Petitioner makes the same arguments concerning EX2010
`
`and EX2011 as it did concerning EX2002.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX2007-2008: Petitioner characterizes the redacted portions of EX2007
`
`and EX2008 as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`confidential.
`
` For the same reasons as above, this information is
`
`B.
`
`Potential Harms to Ecolab, Nalco, and International Paper
`Outweigh the Public Interest in Disclosure.
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that there is no clear harm to Ecolab USA in disclosure
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As above, public disclosure would
`
`Disclosure of the details in the challenged exhibits would also harm
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`4 As explained in Paper 27, both Nalco and Ecolab USA Inc. are interested parties
`in this proceeding, and are commonly owned. Accordingly, both entities share an
`interest in nondisclosure of the identified exhibits and preservation of their
`respective market position(s).
`
`7
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`While the public has an interest in a complete record of the proceedings, that
`
`interest must be balanced against Patent Owner’s need to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of its business practices, research and development efforts and
`
`business partnerships. The public interest is met in this case by the statements
`
`made publicly by Patent Owner–namely, that there was a confidential relationship
`
`with Dr. Dyer in place by virtue of his prior relationship with International Paper
`
`and Nalco (Paper 16 at 2), and Dr. Dyer’s inevitable, and indeed admitted reliance
`
`on information obtained through that relationship (id. at 4-5), supports Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude. The public therefore has a clear framework of the
`
`rationale for Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude, and would, if the Board were to
`
`grant that Motion, need no more to understand the record.
`
`In view of the above, Patent Owner requests that its Motion to Seal EX2002-
`
`2004, EX2010-2011, portions of EX2007-2008, and relevant portions of Paper 16
`
`be granted.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`Date: September 30, 2016
`
`(Trial No. IPR2016-01281)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Anthony R. Zeuli/
`Anthony R. Zeuli, Reg. No. 45,255
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER(cid:3)
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`(cid:3)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS 2002-2004, 2010-2011,
`PORTIONS OF EXHIBITS 2007-2008 AND PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION” and
`“CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE” for the above-captioned matter were served in
`their entirety on September 30, 2016, upon the following parties via e-mail at the
`below email addresses:
`Lead Counsel
`Michael P. Chu (Reg. No. 37,112)
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`227 W. Monroe Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: 312-984-5485
`Facsimile: 312-984-7700
`mchu@mwe.com
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Kevin P. Shortsle (Reg. No. 58,084)
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`227 W. Monroe Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: 312-984-3361
`Facsimile: 312-984-7700
`kshortsle@mwe.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: September 30, 2016
`
`(Trial No. IPR2016-01281)
`
`
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Anthony R. Zeuli/
`Anthony R. Zeuli, Reg. No. 45,255
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`3200 IDS Center
`80 South 8th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 371-5208
`Fax: (612) 332-9081
`Email: tzeuli@merchantgould.com
`NalcoIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`9
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
