UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-0060
`Patent 8,992,608
`_______________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
`BOARD’S FEBRUARY 9, 2018 ORDER REGARDING FILING OF
`CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES
`LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-0060
`Patent 8,992,608
`_______________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE
`BOARD’S FEBRUARY 9, 2018 ORDER REGARDING FILING OF
`CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s February 9, 2018 Order (Paper 57) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.14, 42.54, and 42.71, Petitioners Edwards Lifesciences, Edwards
`
`Lifesciences LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences AG (“Petitioners”) submit this
`
`Request for Reconsideration of the Board’s February 9 Order Regarding Sealing of
`
`Papers 21, 39 & 48 and Exs. 1077, 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099 & 2100.1,2
`
`Alternatively, if the Board is not inclined to grant Reconsideration and authorize
`
`the filing of a motion to seal these documents, Petitioners request that the
`
`documents be expunged, as explained below.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On June 23, 2017, Patent Owner (“PO”) filed under seal its Response (Paper
`
`21) with restricted access and concurrently filed a publicly available redacted
`
`version (Paper 22). PO also filed as exhibits many confidential documents
`
`produced to it by Petitioners as part of discovery in the co-pending litigation in the
`
`District of Delaware, C.A. No. 16-275-JFB-SLR. Many of these exhibits (and
`
`1 Petitioners and Patent Owner have conferred and agreed that Petitioners and
`
`Patent Owner will each file a request for reconsideration addressing the
`
`confidential documents filed under seal without an accompanying motion to seal.
`
`2 Petitioners do not include in this request Paper 47 and understand that Paper 47
`
`will be made public and the redacted version (Paper 46) will be expunged. As
`
`such, the only remaining document of Petitioners at issue is Ex. 1077.
`
`1
`
`
`
`PO’s Response) contain Petitioners’ Highly Confidential information, which PO is
`
`required by the Stipulated Protective Order to file under seal.3 None of these
`
`exhibits contain PO’s Confidential or Highly Confidential information.
`
`On July 28, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Seal various exhibits PO
`
`filed with its Response (“First Motion to Seal”; Paper 25), along with their revised
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order (Paper 26), which the Board
`
`entered on August 10, 2017 (Paper 29). On September 22, 2017, Petitioners filed
`
`their Reply (Paper 33) and a motion to seal (“Second Motion to Seal”; Paper 32)
`
`that Reply and certain of
`
`the concurrently-filed exhibits.
`
` Petitioners
`
`simultaneously submitted redacted versions of their Reply (Paper 34), as well as
`
`the Reply Declaration of Nigel P. Buller (Ex. 1045) and the Declaration of Larry
`
`Lee Wood (Ex. 1046).
`
`PO subsequently filed:
`
` PO’s Motion for Observations on Cross-
`
`Examination (Paper 39) with restricted access and concurrently filed a publicly
`
`available redacted version (Paper 40); Exs. 2094, 2096, 2098, and 2099 with
`
`restricted public access, with no public redacted version; PO’s Reply in Support of
`
`its Motion to Exclude (Paper 48) with restricted access and filed a publicly
`
`available redacted version (Paper 49); and its demonstrative exhibits (Ex. 2100)
`
`3 The Delaware protective order imposes this same requirement.
`
`2
`
`
`
`with restricted access, along with a public redacted version (Ex. 2101). PO did not
`
`file motions to seal with any of these filings.
`
`On December 19, 2017 at Oral Argument, the Board addressed the parties’
`
`failure to file motions to seal concurrent with the filing of those documents with
`
`restricted access not identified in the First or Second Motions to Seal, including the
`
`parties’ demonstratives (Exs. 2100 & 1077). Petitioners understood (in hindsight,
`
`misunderstood) that because the motions to seal were not filed concurrently with
`
`each paper or exhibit filed with restricted access, the Board’s authorization was
`
`required before the motions could be filed. Following the Oral Argument, the
`
`parties conferred and worked diligently over the intervening holiday weeks to
`
`reach agreement on a motion to seal those papers. Believing that Board
`
`authorization was required before filing the motion, on January 8, 2018, the parties
`
`emailed the Board to obtain authorization to file a joint motion to seal their
`
`unredacted demonstrative exhibits and the other unredacted papers having
`
`confidential information. Ex. 3001, 2. The parties again sought authorization to
`
`file a joint motion to seal in the email to the Board on January 17, 2018. Ex. 3001,
`
`1 (“Subject to the Board’s authorization (per the request in the [January 8, 2018]
`
`email below), Petitioners will file a joint motion to seal papers and exhibits
`
`(including the demonstrative exhibits) that contain confidential information and
`
`which previously were filed in this proceeding.”). Petitioners acknowledge that
`
`3
`
`
`
`their request to file a joint motion to seal did not explicitly identify the papers and
`
`exhibits that would be the subject of the motion to seal, and instead made reference
`
`generically to confidential information previously filed in this proceeding.
`
`On February 9, 2018, the Board held that “Petitioner’s unsupported and
`
`ambiguous request to file a motion to seal ‘other papers and exhibits’ is denied.”
`
`Paper 57 at 13. In its February 9 Order, the Board further held that “unless
`
`Petitioner or Patent Owner files, no later than February 23, 2018, a request for
`
`reconsideration of this Decision or the party that filed the paper or exhibit requests
`
`expungement of the paper or exhibit” the documents filed with restricted access
`
`will be made publicly available. Id. at 16.
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order, Petitioners request reconsideration of the
`
`Board’s Decision regarding sealing portions of Papers 21, 39 & 48 and Exs. 1077,
`
`2094, 2096, 2098, 2099, & 2100. As explained below, good cause exists for
`
`and/or the interests of justice would be served by grant of this relief.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS AND/OR THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE
`WOULD BE SERVED BY RECONSIDERING THE FEBRUARY 9
`ORDER REGARDING SEALING PATENT OWNERS’ FILINGS:
`PAPERS 21, 39 & 48 AND EXHIBITS 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099 & 2100
`
`Petitioners submit that there exists “good cause to set aside the requirement
`
`that a motion to seal be filed concurrently with the document to be sealed, or [that
`
`it is] in the interests of justice.” Paper 57 at 13. The documents at issue contain
`
`Petitioners’ Highly Confidential information – not Patent Owner’s – that was in
`
`4
`
`
`
`PO’s possession only because it was produced during discovery in the co-pending
`
`District of Delaware litigation. Although the information at issue is entirely
`
`Petitioners’ Highly Confidential information, it was PO that put this information in
`
`issue by (wrongly) asserting that Petitioners’ Sapien 3 product embodies the ’608
`
`Patent. Moreover, it was PO who filed Papers 21, 39 & 48 and Exs. 2094, 2096,
`
`2098, 2099 & 2100 containing Petitioners’ Highly Confidential information
`
`without simultaneously submitting a motion to seal, despite the provisions of the
`
`IPR and Delaware protective orders requiring them to do so. Not surprisingly, PO
`
`did not alert Petitioners of what it intended to file in advance such that Petitioners
`
`could have simultaneously submitted motions to seal.4 Thus, releasing Petitioners’
`
`Highly Confidential information would punish Petitioners for PO’s errors.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Petitioners respectfully submit that the
`
`Board may have misapprehended or overlooked the rather unusual circumstances
`
`here: that it was PO who failed to file motions to seal Papers 21, 39, & 48 and
`
`Exs. 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099, & 2100, but that it is Petitioners’ Highly Confidential
`
`information at risk of being unsealed due solely to PO’s failure to comply with the
`
`4 Indeed, both the Board’s default protective order and the protective order entered
`
`in this matter recognize the impracticality of requiring the non-filing party to file
`
`motions to seal and redacted versions, placing the requirement squarely on “the
`
`submitting party.” Protective Order (Paper 26) at ¶ 5(A)(i)–(ii).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Board’s orders. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), the fact that it is Petitioners’
`
`Highly Confidential information that is at issue (and that it was PO who put
`
`Petitioners’ confidential information at issue) was previously addressed in the
`
`record in the First Motion to Seal (Paper 25) at 2–3 (“each of the Proposed
`
`Exhibits summarized in the table below contains Petitioner’s confidential trade
`
`secret, business, and commercial information”; see also Table at 2–3 (exhibits
`
`sought to be sealed bear EDWARDS Bates numbers and descriptions repeatedly
`
`refer to, e.g., Edwards’ products and Edwards’ internal information but all bear Ex.
`
`20XX numbers indicating they were filed by PO)). Additionally, Petitioners note
`
`that nearly all of the confidential information at issue in Papers 21, 39 & 48 and
`
`Exs. 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099 & 2100 derives from source documents included in
`
`either the First or Second Motion to Seal.5 That is, the confidential information
`
`itself was subject to a motion to seal, even where the paper or exhibit was not.
`
`Petitioners apologize for any confusion caused by their reference to “other
`
`papers and exhibits” in their January 8, 2018 email to the Board. Petitioners
`
`intended that the parties would explain in detail in a joint motion the portions of
`
`5 Per the Board’s February 9 Order, a Revised Motion to Seal with respect to those
`
`exhibits is filed concurrently herewith, as well as redacted versions of the exhibits
`
`that were originally sealed in their entirety. Petitioners have also prepared redacted
`
`versions of Exs. 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099, if the Board grants authorization to file.
`
`6
`
`
`
`each document filed by PO without motions to seal, but which contain Petitioners’
`
`Highly Confidential information, they sought to seal. Respectfully, had the Board
`
`authorized Petitioners’ request, Petitioners believe there is good cause to seal
`
`portions of Papers 21, 39 & 48 and Exs. 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099 & 2100 because:
`
`Paper 21 (PO’s Response): PO simultaneously submitted a redacted public
`
`version of this Paper redacting portions that quote from or describe in detail the
`
`Highly Confidential information contained in the underlying exhibits. The
`
`underlying exhibits whose information is at issue were included in the First Motion
`
`to Seal and are included in the Revised Motion to Seal. These exhibits (and the
`
`pages in PO’s Response on which they are quoted or described in detail) are: Exs.
`
`2031 (at 12–13, 56, 65–66); 2034 (at 51, 55); 2036 (at 54, 55); 2039 (at 58); 2041
`
`(at 59); 2042 (at 59); 2043 (at 59); 2044 (at 59, 65); 2045 (at 60); 2046 (at 60);
`
`2055 (at 64); 2056 (at 65); 2057 (at 66); 2063 (at 69); 2085 (at 53, 56); 2086 (at
`
`53); 2088 (at 56); 2089 (at 61); 2090 (at 62); and 2091 (at 64). As explained in
`
`more detail in the Revised Motion to Seal, these exhibits (and the quotations from
`
`or descriptions of them in PO’s Response) disclose competitive information
`
`regarding internal conversations about the development of Petitioners’ products;
`
`Petitioners’ physician training strategy; internal manufacturing specifications and
`
`design
`
`reviews; competitively sensitive
`
`information
`
`regarding physician
`
`preferences relating to transcatheter heart valves; internal notes regarding business
`
`7
`
`
`
`and marketing decisions and progress; internal marketing information; internal
`
`testing details; internal market analyses; and messaging and marketing strategy.6
`
`Paper 39 (PO’s Observations on Cross): PO simultaneously submitted a
`
`public version redacting portions of 3 sentences and a figure that quote from
`
`Petitioners’ Highly Confidential documents. Page 5 redacts a quote from Ex.
`
`2063, which is included in the First and Revised Motions to Seal. The redacted
`
`quote relates to internal development commentary provided on a draft script
`
`purportedly prepared for an internal video about the development of the SAPIEN 3
`
`product. Pages 6–7 quote from and excerpt a graph from Exhibit 2099, an
`
`“internal use only” sales and marketing package that describes and depicts
`
`Petitioners’ confidential sales information concerning U.S. THV average daily
`
`reorders and confidential market share analysis.
`
`Paper 48 (PO’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude): PO
`
`submitted a public version redacting quotes and a figure from Ex. 2046, which is
`
`included in the First and Revised Motions to Seal. The figure and description of
`
`the figure at issue is a highly confidential detailed cross-sectional drawing and
`
`6 These redactions are analogous to those made to the publicly-filed version of Ex.
`
`2080, which the Board sealed (Paper 57 at 6–7), redacting quotes or detailed
`
`information from Petitioners’ Highly Confidential documents.
`
`8
`
`
`
`description of the SAPIEN 3 device that was included in an internal presentation
`
`regarding the design review for the SAPIEN 3 product.
`
`Exhibit No. 2094 (Deposition Transcript of Dr. Nigel Buller): The Oct.
`
`17, 2017 Buller Deposition Transcript was marked during the deposition as Highly
`
`Confidential pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. The
`
`confidential portions of this testimony regard Petitioners’ and PVT’s highly
`
`confidential prototype designs and specific details regarding the design and
`
`attachment of the inner and outer skirts of Petitioners’ Sapien 3 products. This
`
`testimony was based on portions of the Buller Reply Declaration (Ex. 1045) that
`
`were sealed pursuant to the Board’s Feb. 9, 2018 Order (e.g., § II.A & ¶ 25).
`
`Exhibit No. 2096 (Deposition Transcript of Larry Wood): The Oct. 19,
`
`2017 Wood Deposition Transcript was marked as Highly Confidential pursuant to
`
`the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. The confidential portions of this
`
`testimony regard Edwards’ highly confidential prototypes (which testimony was
`
`based on portions of the Wood Declaration (Ex. 1046) that were sealed pursuant to
`
`the Board’s February 9, 2018 Order (e.g., ¶¶ 22–24)) and two highly confidential
`
`documents Petitioners produced in the Delaware litigation that PO introduced
`
`during Mr. Wood’s deposition, Exs. 2098 and 2099 (see below).
`
`Exhibit No. 2098 (District Court Deposition Transcript of Larry Wood):
`
`This is a 322-page Deposition Transcript of Mr. Larry Wood from the Delaware
`
`9
`
`
`
`litigation, which was marked during the deposition as Highly Confidential pursuant
`
`to the terms of the Delaware Protective Order. See Ex. 2098 at 31:19-21. For
`
`purposes of this IPR proceeding, Mr. Wood was questioned only about testimony
`
`appearing at pages 101-103. See Ex. 2096 at 33:11-36:24. Petitioners’ counsel
`
`objected to entering the entirety of the transcript as an exhibit given that only 3
`
`pages of the transcript were put in issue at Mr. Wood’s IPR deposition, but PO’s
`
`counsel nonetheless chose to mark the entirety of the transcript as an exhibit. Id. at
`
`34:24-35:6. The redacted testimony at pages 101-103 concerns highly confidential
`
`information relating to Edwards’ internal THV research and development program
`
`and design issues related thereto. The remaining uncited pages of the Delaware
`
`Deposition Transcript – pp. 1-100 and 104-322 – relate to a broad spectrum of
`
`confidential sales, marketing, research, and development information concerning
`
`Edwards Lifesciences’ THV business. Although these uncited pages are of little or
`
`no relevance to this proceeding, if permitted, Petitioners would file a version
`
`redacting confidential material from each page and leaving unredacted non-
`
`confidential information up until the transcript was marked Highly Confidential by
`
`counsel so that the public may determine at a basic level what the document
`
`addresses. Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00731,
`
`Paper 32 at 3–4 (PTAB Feb. 5, 2016) (granting motion to compel production of a
`
`copy of a certain schedule of an agreement that contained highly confidential
`
`10
`
`
`
`business information but noting that “[t]here is no obligation on a party to produce
`
`non-relevant information” and permitting petitioner to “redact any content from
`
`[the filed exhibit] not relevant to this proceeding”).
`
`Exhibit No. 2099 (Global THV Q2 2016 Update): This 69-page document
`
`is an internal Edwards presentation titled “Global THV – Q2 2016 Update,” which
`
`is a Highly Confidential package of competitively sensitive sales and marketing
`
`information concerning Edwards’ products and was produced in the Delaware
`
`litigation with all pages designated as “Highly Confidential.” Should the Board
`
`grant permission, Petitioners have prepared a redacted version. The pages
`
`discussed during Mr. Wood’s testimony contain confidential sales information
`
`concerning US THV average daily reorders of the SAPIEN line of products and
`
`confidential market share analysis of Petitioners’ SAPIEN 3 product. The bottom
`
`of the slides state this information is for “internal use only.”
`
`Ex. 2100, PO’s Slides: Certain of PO’s slides (33, 36–38, 41–43, 48, 50–
`
`51, 53–54, 78–80, 90, 94–96, 98–99, 102, 110) contain excerpts from certain of
`
`Petitioners’ documents (Exs. 2031 at 36; 2034 at 6; 2039 at 1; 2041 at 6 & 7; 2042
`
`at 11 & 12; 2043 at 23 & 24; 2044 at 12; 2046 at 4, 10 & 28; 2055 at 5; 2056 at 56
`
`& 58; 2057 at 13 & 14; 2063 at 4; 2077 at 11; 2090 at 5; 2099 at 26); or excerpts
`
`from Buller Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2094) testimony revealing details of the
`
`design and assembly of Petitioners’ Sapien 3 product; or Wood Deposition
`
`11
`
`
`
`Transcript (Ex. 2096) testimony on the same topic as Ex. 2031 regarding internal
`
`conversations about the development of the Sapien product line, including product
`
`testing. Exs. 2031, 2034, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057,
`
`2063, 2077, and 2090 are all included in the First Motion to Seal and the Revised
`
`Motion to Seal. More detail regarding the types of confidential information
`
`disclosed (and the portions of which Petitioners seek to redact pursuant to the
`
`Revised Motion to Seal) are provided in those motions. Generally, the highly
`
`confidential information disclosed in certain of PO’s slides includes internal
`
`information regarding product development and potential design improvements;
`
`details of confidential prototype projects; details of Petitioners’ analysis of the
`
`market needs and drivers and competitive strategies; internal conversations
`
`regarding development of the Sapien product line including internal testing;
`
`internal information regarding sales strategy and messaging; confidential sales
`
`data; details of the design of Sapien 3 and detailed figures revealing specific details
`
`thereof; and a highly confidential draft script purportedly prepared for an internal
`
`video revealing marketing information and messaging of Petitioners’ products.
`
`Additionally, Petitioners note that the Board has previously set aside the
`
`requirement that a motion to seal be filed concurrently with the document to be
`
`sealed and allowed parties to belatedly file motions to seal documents previously
`
`filed under seal. See Apple Inc. v. SightSound Techs. LLC, CBM2013-00020,
`
`12
`
`
`
`Paper 105 at 64-65 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2014); Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-
`
`America, Inc., IPR2015-00677, Paper 9 at 4-5 (PTAB July 6, 2015) (“We find that
`
`Patent Owner attempted to file the exhibit under seal but did not perfect that
`
`attempt by filing a motion to seal. Therefore, Patent Owner shall file a motion to
`
`seal [exhibit filed under seal].”); Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator
`
`Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper 89 at 1–2 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2015) (permitting
`
`the parties to take “appropriate steps . . . to protect their confidential information”
`
`where patent owner filed as confidential but without a motion to seal various
`
`documents that “may contain confidential information of [p]etitioner.”); Mylan
`
`Pharm. Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2016-01127, Paper 97 at 2–3 (PTAB
`
`Nov. 9, 2017) (where both parties filed patent owner’s confidential documents
`
`under seal but without an accompanying motion to seal, directing patent owner to
`
`subsequently file a motion to seal in order “[t]o avoid any prejudice”).
`
`For the above reasons, Petitioners respectfully submit that there is good
`
`cause or it is in the interests of justice (Paper 57 at 13) to set aside the requirement
`
`to concurrently file a motion to seal.7 Should the Board deny this request,
`
`7 If the February 9 Order permits Petitioners to make an out-of-time request to file
`
`a motion to seal documents submitted by PO (outside of this motion for
`
`reconsideration), Petitioners respectfully request authorization to file such a motion
`
`(or a conference call to discuss this request).
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners alternatively request that the Board expunge these documents filed by
`
`PO without a motion to seal, rather than unsealing Petitioners’ Highly Confidential
`
`information because of PO’s failure to file a motion to seal in violation of the
`
`Stipulated Protective Order.8 Cf. RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01750, Paper 58 (PTAB May 6, 2016).
`
`III. PETITIONERS’ SLIDES (EX. 1077)
`
`Petitioners also request reconsideration of the Board’s decision regarding
`
`sealing of certain of Petitioners’ demonstrative exhibits (Ex. 1077). Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d), as discussed above, Petitioners respectfully submit that the
`
`Board may have misapprehended or overlooked Petitioners’ good faith attempt to
`
`comply with the Board’s instructions provided at the Oral Argument, which
`
`Petitioners (mis)understood to require a request and authorization from the Board
`
`before filing. Petitioners submit that this matter was previously addressed in
`
`Petitioners’ January 8 and January 17 emails and that the exhibits that are the
`
`source of the information sought to be sealed in 5 out of Petitioners’ 80 slides were
`
`already included in the motions to seal (and are included in the Revised Motion to
`
`Seal, which explains the good cause for sealing portions of those exhibits). The
`
`redactions to slides 67, 68, 70, 71, and 74 of Ex. 1077 are to detailed diagrams of
`
`8 PO’s failure to file a motion to seal, if it cannot be remedied, also violates the
`
`Delaware Protective Order.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Sapien 3 product from Exs. 2034 and 2077; detailed photographs from
`
`Edwards’ internal manufacturing documents and detailed information about the
`
`design of the two separate skirts used on Sapien 3 excerpted or derived from Exs.
`
`2036, 1062, and 1063; photographs and descriptions of Edwards’ highly
`
`confidential prototypes from Exs. 1061 and 1049. Exs. 1049, 1061, 2034, 2036,
`
`and 2077 are included in the First and Revised Motions to Seal. Exhibits 1062 and
`
`1063 are included in the Second and Revised Motions to Seal.
`
`Alternatively, if the Board is not inclined to grant this request and permit
`
`Petitioners to file a motion to seal with respect to certain of its demonstrative
`
`exhibits, Petitioners request pursuant to the Board’s February 9 Order (“the party
`
`that filed the document may request that it be expunged by the same date” (Paper
`
`57 at 15, 16)) that the confidential version of their demonstratives (Exhibit 1077)
`
`be expunged and Petitioners would stand on the non-confidential version of their
`
`demonstratives (Exhibit 1078).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board either (1)
`
`grant their Request for Reconsideration regarding sealing portions of Papers 21, 39
`
`& 48 and Exhibits 1077, 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099 & 2100, and authorize the filing
`
`of a motion to seal these documents, or (2) expunge each of these documents, as
`
`detailed herein.
`
`15
`
`
`
`DATED: February 23, 2018
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan (Reg. No. (54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady (Reg. No. 42,042)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e),
`the undersigned certifies
`
`that on
`
`Pursuant
`
`December 15, 2017, a complete and entire copy of PETITIONERS’ REQUEST
`
`FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD’S FEBRUARY 9, 2018
`
`ORDER REGARDING FILING OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS
`
`UNDER SEAL has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following
`
`addresses of record for Patent Owner:
`
`jennifer.sklenar@apks.com
`
`wallace.wu@apks.com
`
`marc.cohn@apks.com
`
`matthew.wolf@apks.com
`
`edward.han@apks.com
`
`Dated: February 23, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Esq. (Reg. No. 44,089)
`Brian P. Egan, Esq. (Reg. No. 54,866)
`Catherine Nyarady, Esq. (Reg. No. 42,042)
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and
`Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`17
`
`
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
