Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 57
`Entered: February 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal in Part, Denying in Part, and
`Additional Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 57
`Entered: February 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal in Part, Denying in Part, and
`Additional Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`This Decision addresses various papers and exhibits filed by Edwards
`
`Lifesciences Corporation, Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and Edwards
`Lifesciences AG (“Petitioner”) and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., (“Patent
`Owner”), (collectively, “the Parties”), with restricted public access, as well
`as two pending motions to seal. For the reasons that follow, the motions to
`seal identified below are granted in part, and denied in part, as set forth in
`the Order below. We also grant Petitioner’s request to file amended
`objections to Patent Owner’s demonstratives.
`We begin by summarizing portions of our prior Decision on July 20,
`2017, in which we denied the Joint Motion (Paper 20) of for entry of a
`proposed Stipulated Protective Order and authorized the Parties to file a
`motion for entry of a substitute protective order to address the concerns we
`raised. Paper 24, 8 (the “July 20 Decision”).1 In our July 20 Decision the
`Parties were further ordered:
`that on, or before, July 28, 2017, with respect to each and
`every paper or exhibit filed with restricted public access, the
`Parties shall:
`(1) file a non-confidential, redacted version of each exhibit
`or paper sought to be maintained as confidential;
`(2) notify the Board to specifically identify each exhibit or
`paper, if any, no longer sought to be maintained as confidential;
`and
`
`(3) notify the Board to specifically identify each exhibit or
`paper, if any, sought to be expunged and no longer relied upon
`in this proceeding;
`July 20 Decision, 9 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7–8 (stating that
`
`
`1 Subsequently, the Parties filed a revised Joint Motion for Entry of
`Stipulated Protective Order on July 28, 2017, (Paper 26), which we granted
`on August 10, 2017 (Paper 29).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`“Patent Owner or Petitioner shall file a motion to seal addressing every
`document filed with restricted public access by July 28, 2017, for which
`confidentiality is sought to be maintained”).
`The July 20 Decision expressly identified Paper 21 (the Patent
`Owner’s Response) as having been filed with restricted public accessibility,
`along with a public redacted version, but without a concurrent motion to
`seal. Id. at 5. The July 20 Decision also expressly identified Exhibits 2031,
`2034, 2035, 2036, 2039, 2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2055,
`2056, 2057, 2063, 2077, 2078, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2087, 2088, 2089, 2090,
`and 2091 as having been filed with restricted public accessibility, but
`without either public redacted versions or a concurrent motion to seal. Id.
`The July 20 Decision explained in detail the requirements of the
`Board’s rules for submitting documents with restricted public access, which
`counsel already should have been very well aware of:
`The requirement that a motion to seal must accompany the
`filing of a document with restricted public access
`is
`unambiguous. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, “[a] party
`intending a document or thing to be sealed shall file a motion to
`seal concurrent with the filing of the document or thing to be
`sealed” (emphasis added). Our regulations clearly state that the
`“record of a proceeding, including documents and things, shall
`be made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14. To this end, as set forth in the Board’s default
`protective order:
`Where confidentiality is alleged as to some
`but not all of the information submitted to the
`Board, the submitting party shall file confidential
`and non-confidential versions of its submission,
`together with a Motion to Seal the confidential
`version setting
`forth
`the
`reasons why
`the
`information redacted from the non-confidential
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`version is confidential and should not be made
`available to the public. The nonconfidential version
`of the submission shall clearly indicate the locations
`of
`information
`that has been redacted. The
`confidential version of the submission shall be filed
`under seal.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,771.
`Similarly, as set forth in the Case Management and Scheduling
`Order:
`
`The Board has a strong interest in promoting
`public accessibility to the proceedings. If a party
`seeks to redact information from documents filed in
`this proceeding in accordance with a protective
`order, the redactions must be limited to isolated
`passages consisting entirely of confidential
`information, and the thrust of the underlying
`argument or evidence must
`remain clearly
`discernible.
`Paper 8, 3. Thus, the default rule is that all papers filed in an
`inter partes review are open and available for access by the
`public; only “confidential information” may be protected from
`disclosure upon a showing of good cause. See 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 316(a)(1) and 316(a)(7); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54(a).
`Generally, the party asserting confidentiality bears the burden of
`showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(c). This includes showing that the information is truly
`confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong
`public interest in having an open record. A motion to seal will
`not be granted if based only on broad or generic contentions of
`confidentiality. Moreover, information subject to a protective
`order will become public if identified in a final written decision
`in this proceeding, and a motion to expunge information will not
`necessarily prevail over the public interest in maintaining a
`complete and understandable file history. See Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761. As such, the Parties are
`encouraged to stipulate to facts or use other means to present
`evidence without the need for a motion to seal.
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`Counsel should be well-aware of the procedures for filing
`confidential documents, including the requirement for a motion
`to seal. Counsel are directed to review the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, the Case Management and Scheduling Order,
`and the Board’s regulations to assure adherence to such
`procedural requirements.
`July 20 Decision, 5–7. We also expressly cautioned the Parties against filing
`documents that are redacted in their entirety, noting that:
`To the extent further guidance is necessary, we make the
`following observations. Few, if any, exhibits, even business
`records, should ever be confidential in their entirety, without
`good cause to show that all of the information contained therein
`is truly sensitive. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). Even business
`records (e.g., sales forecasts, license agreements) often contain
`some non-confidential information serving to identify the nature
`of confidential portions of the exhibit. Conversely, deposition
`transcripts, declarations, and papers containing a party’s
`arguments will generally contain substantial non-confidential
`portions. In all cases, the Motion to Seal must set forth the
`reasons why the information redacted from the non-confidential
`version is confidential and should not be made publicly
`available. Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,771 (emphasis added).
`July 20 Decision, 7 n.3.
`
`First Motion to Seal
`On July 28, 2017, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to File Confidential
`
`Documents Under Seal directed to Exhibits 2031, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2039,
`2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2063, 2077,
`2078, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2087, 2088, 2089, 2090, and 2091. Paper 25 (the
`“First Motion to Seal”). In consideration of the First Motion to Seal, we
`make the following determinations:
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`(1) The First Motion to Seal did not seek to maintain as
`confidential the Patent Owner Response (Paper 21) filed on June 23,
`2017, even though it was filed with restricted public access and was
`accompanied by a publicly available redacted version filed as Paper
`22. The July 20 Decision expressly ordered the Parties to address in a
`motion to seal “every document filed with restricted public access by
`July 28, 2017, for which confidentiality is sought to be maintained,”
`and expressly identified Paper 21 as one for which no motion to seal
`had been filed. July 20 Decision, 5–9. Accordingly, in the absence of
`a motion to seal Paper 21, we order that Paper 22 (the redacted
`version of Paper 21) shall be expunged and Paper 21 shall be
`designated as publicly accessible.
`(2) The First Motion to Seal stated that the Parties no longer
`sought to maintain as confidential Exhibits 2035, 2040, and 2078.
`Paper 25, 5. Accordingly, Exhibits 2035, 2040, and 2078 shall be
`designated as publicly accessible.
`(3) The First Motion to Seal states that Ex. 2080, the
`Declaration of Stephen J. D. Brecker, was filed with a publicly
`available redacted version, and that “the portions that have been
`redacted contain internal Edwards information about Edwards’ Sapien
`3 product, including competitively sensitive information.” Paper 25,
`3–4. We have reviewed the portions that have been redacted and
`determine that the redactions do not appear to be facially excessive
`and appear to be tailored to encompass confidential information.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, we grant the request to seal the redacted portions of
`Exhibit 2080.
`(4) The First Motion to Seal states that Exhibit 2087 is a
`confidential video of internal testing of its product. Paper 25, 4.
`Because the video is not, as a practical matter, subject to redaction,
`based on the representations of the Parties, we grant the request to seal
`Exhibit 2087 in its entirety.
`(5) The First Motion to Seal states that Exhibits 2031, 2034,
`2036, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057,
`2063, 2077, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, and 2091 should all be
`maintained under seal in their entirety. Paper 25, 4. Upon review of
`the exhibits at issue, we find the representation that each document in
`its entirety represents confidential information lacks credibility. The
`motion fails to establish that “every paragraph, every sentence, and
`every word in each exhibit constitutes confidential information that
`should be sealed.” See, e.g., Unified Patents Inc. v. Blitzsafe Texas,
`LLC, IPR2016-00118, Paper 13, 3 (PTAB Feb. 29, 2016); see also
`FFF Enterprises, Inc., v. AmerisourceBergen Specialty Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2014-00154, Paper 36, (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016); Palo Alto
`Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00151, Paper 50 (PTAB Feb.
`24, 2017). One sentence statements arguing in a conclusory manner
`that the document is “highly confidential” and contains “competitively
`sensitive information” is, on its face, insufficient to support sealing of
`exhibits in their entirety. Nor does a parties’ designation of a
`document as “highly confidential” during production as part of
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`discovery demonstrate that the entirety of the document contains
`confidential information. Accordingly, good cause has not been
`shown to seal Exhibits 2031, 2034, 2036, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043,
`2044, 2045, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2063, 2077, 2085, 2086, 2088,
`2089, 2090, and 2091.
`Second Motion to Seal
`On September 22, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion to File Confidential
`Documents Under Seal directed to Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibits 1045,
`1046, 1049, 1050, 1061, 1062, and 1063. Paper 32 (the “Second Motion to
`Seal”). Although it is not a joint motion, Patent Owner did not file an
`opposition to the Second Motion to Seal. In consideration of the Second
`Motion to Seal, we make the following determinations:
`(1) The Second Motion to Seal states that Ex. 1045, the
`Reply Declaration of Nigel P. Buller, M.D., was filed with a publicly
`available redacted version, and that the “portions that have been
`redacted contain internal Edwards information about Edwards’ Sapien
`3 product, including competitively sensitive information such as
`engineering and design information, as well as highly confidential
`information about Edwards prototypes.” Paper 32, 3, 5. We have
`reviewed the portions that have been redacted and determine that the
`redactions are not facially excessive and appear to be tailored to
`encompass confidential information. Accordingly, we grant the
`request to seal the redacted portions of Exhibit 1045.
`(2) The Second Motion to Seal states that Ex. 1046, the
`Declaration of Larry Wood, was filed with a publicly available
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`redacted version, and that the “portions of the declaration that have
`been redacted contain internal Edwards information about Edwards’
`highly confidential prototypes and highly confidential prototypes that
`PVT developed before it was acquired by Edwards, including design
`ideas and testing results.” Paper 32, 3, 5. We have reviewed the
`portions that have been redacted and determine that the redactions are
`not facially excessive and appear to be tailored to encompass
`confidential information. Accordingly, we grant the request to seal
`the redacted portions of Exhibit 1046.
`(3) The Second Motion to Seal states that Exhibit 1061 is a
`set of photographs of highly confidential prototypes designed by PVT.
`Paper 32, 4. Because the photographs are not, as a practical matter,
`subject to redaction, based on the representations of Petitioner, we
`grant the request to seal Exhibit 1061 in its entirety.
`(4)
`Petitioner’s Reply was filed as a document with restricted
`public access (Paper 33), and as a redacted document with public
`access (Paper 34). The Second Motion to Seal states that the portions
`of the Reply that were redacted “contain internal Edwards information
`5 that is competitively sensitive, including information about
`Edwards’ Sapien 3 product, as well as design and testing of highly
`confidential prototypes.” Paper 32, 4–5. We have reviewed the
`portions that have been redacted and determine that the redactions are
`not facially excessive and appear to be tailored to encompass
`confidential information. Accordingly, we grant the request to seal
`the unredacted Reply (Paper 33).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`
`(5) The Second Motion to Seal states that Exhibits 1049,
`1050, 1062, and 1063 should all be maintained under seal in their
`entirety. Paper 32, 5. Upon review of the exhibits at issue, we find
`the representation that each document in its entirety represents
`confidential information lacks credibility. As explained above, the
`motion fails to establish that every paragraph, every sentence, and
`every word in each exhibit constitutes confidential information that
`should be sealed. That confidential information is alleged to be
`disclosed “throughout” each exhibit that does not alleviate Petitioner
`of the obligation to identify and redact that which is confidential and
`to publicly disclose that which is not confidential. With regard to
`engineering drawings, for example, although a drawing, itself, may be
`confidential that does not lead to the conclusion that all of the text
`accompanying the drawing is also confidential such that the public is
`prevented from determining at the even a basic level what the
`document addresses. Accordingly, good cause has not been shown to
`seal Exhibits 1049, 1050, 1062, and 1063.
`Documents Filed With Restricted Public Access and No Motion to Seal
`Counsel are under an obligation to comply with the Board’s rules and
`are expected to understand the requirements for filing documents with
`restricted public access and for filing a motion to seal. In light of counsel’s
`repeated failure to comply with these requirements, we expressly stated in
`the July 20 Decision:
`Counsel should be well-aware of the procedures for filing
`confidential documents, including the requirement for a motion
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`to seal. Counsel are directed to review the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, the Case Management and Scheduling Order,
`and the Board’s regulations to assure adherence to such
`procedural requirements.
`July 20 Decision, 7; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 (“[a] party intending a
`document or thing to be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the
`filing of the document or thing to be sealed”). Upon review of the record,
`we make the following determinations:
`(1) On November 3, 2017, Patent Owner filed Paper 39
`(Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on Cross-Examination) with
`restricted public access, along with a public redacted version (Paper
`40). No motion to seal Paper 39 was filed. On the same date, Patent
`Owner filed Exhibits 2094, 2096, 2098, and 2099 with restricted
`public access, with no public redacted version. No motion to seal
`Exhibits 2094, 2096, 2098, and 2099 was filed. Accordingly, in the
`absence of a motion to seal, Exhibits 2094, 2096, 2098, and 2099 shall
`be designated as publicly accessible, Paper 39 shall be designated as
`publicly accessible, and Paper 40 shall be expunged.
`(2) On November 17, 2017, Petitioner filed Paper 47
`(Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on
`Cross-Examination) with restricted public access, with no public
`redacted version. No motion to seal Paper 47 was filed. Accordingly,
`in the absence of a motion to seal, Paper 47 shall be designated as
`publicly accessible.
`(3) On December 1, 2017, Patent Owner filed Paper 48
`(Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude Evidence
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64) with restricted public access, along
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`with a public redacted version (Paper 49). Patent Owner filed a
`duplicate copy of Paper 48 as Paper 50, again with restricted public
`access. No motion to seal Paper 48 or Paper 50 was filed.
`Accordingly, in the absence of a motion to seal, Paper 49 (the
`redacted version of Paper 48) and Paper 50 (the duplicate copy of
`Paper 48), shall be expunged and Paper 48 shall be designated as
`publicly accessible.
`Demonstrative Exhibits Filed with No Motion to Seal
`On December 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a copy of the demonstrative
`exhibits it intended to use during the oral argument as Exhibit 1077 with
`restricted public access, along with a public redacted version as
`Exhibit 1078. No motion to seal Exhibit 1077 was filed. On December 19,
`2017, Patent Owner filed a copy of the demonstrative exhibits it intended to
`use during the oral argument as Exhibit 2100 with restricted public access,
`along with a public redacted version as Exhibit 2101. No motion to seal was
`filed with Exhibit 2100.
`During the oral argument on December 19, 2017, counsel for
`Petitioner was addressed the following:
`JUDGE TARTAL: . . . I know both parties filed copies of
`the redacted versions of the demonstratives as exhibits today.
`Petitioner, did you file a motion to seal with that filing?
`MR. CORDREY: No, Your Honor. We filed copies of the
`redacted version and then -- publicly and then we filed copies of
`the unredacted versions privately.
`JUDGE TARTAL: Okay. I believe we've directed the
`parties in the past that anytime a document is filed with limited
`access to the public, a Motion to Seal has to accompany that
`filing, just as support showing as to why it would be designated
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`as confidential. So that would need to be filed for both the
`Petitioner’s and the Patent Owner’s redacted versions of the
`slides.
`MR. CORDREY: We’ll do that.
`Paper 55, 8:9–21. Subsequent to the oral argument, Petitioner did not file a
`motion to seal Exhibits 1077 and 2100, or any other document.
`
`Inexplicably, on January 8, 2018, counsel for Petitioner sent an email
`to the Board stating, in part, that:
`Petitioners also request authorization to file a joint motion to seal
`the unredacted versions of the demonstrative exhibits filed by the
`parties. The joint motion to seal also includes other papers and
`exhibits that contain confidential information and which
`previously were filed in this proceeding.
`Ex. 3001, 2.
`Petitioner’s unsupported and ambiguous request to file a motion to
`seal “other papers and exhibits” is denied. Absent a showing of good cause
`to set aside the requirement that a motion to seal be filed concurrently with
`the document to be sealed, or in the interests of justice, no additional motion
`to seal in this case is authorized at this time. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, 42.5
`Petitioner also has not shown good cause for failing to timely file a motion
`to seal Exhibits 1077 and 2100. Accordingly, Exhibits 1077 and 2100 shall
`be designated as publicly accessible, and Exhibits 1078 and 2101 shall be
`expunged.
`
`
`Oral Argument Transcript
`The oral argument transcript (Paper 55) was designated by the Board
`as confidential until the Parties had the opportunity to identify any
`information asserted to be confidential. By email dated January 17, 2018,
`Petitioner informed the Board that the Parties had conferred and agreed that
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`the oral argument transcript did not contain confidential information and
`could be unsealed in its entirety. Ex. 3001, 1. Accordingly, Paper 55 shall
`be designated as publicly accessible.
`Petitioner’s Request to File Amended Objections to Demonstratives
`In the January 8, 2018, email from counsel for Petitioner, Petitioner
`requested leave to file an amended set of objections to correspond to the
`filed version of Patent Owner’s demonstratives, because the filed version
`was reordered and relabeled from the version provided to Petitioner that was
`the subject of Petitioner’s objections. Ex. 3001, 2. Petitioner represents that
`Patent Owner does not oppose the request. Id. Accordingly, Petitioner is
`authorized to file, no later than February 16, 2018, an amended set of
`objections to Patent Owner’s demonstratives that contain no substantive
`changes from the originally filed objections other than to amend the
`identification of the slide that is the subject of the objection.
`Conclusion
`As set forth in the order below, Paper 33 and Exhibits 1045, 1046,
`1061, 2080, and 2087 shall remain under seal. The First Motion to Seal and
`the Second Motion to Seal are otherwise denied. For the exhibits that were
`previously the subject of a motion to seal, either party is authorized to file,
`no later than February 23, 2018, a revised motion to seal any of Exhibits
`1049, 1050, 1062, 1063, 2031, 2034, 2036, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044,
`2045, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2063, 2077, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090,
`and 2091. Any revised motion to seal exhibits that were previously the
`subject of a motion to seal shall include a discussion of the applicable case
`law that supports the movant’s effort to distinguish between material that is
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`confidential and properly redacted from material that is not confidential and
`must be publicly disclosed. Alternatively, the party that filed the exhibit
`may request, no later than February 23, 2018, that it be expunged. In the
`absence of a revised motion to seal or a request to expunge, Exhibits 1049,
`1050, 1062, 1063, 2031, 2034, 2036, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045,
`2046, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2063, 2077, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, and
`2091 shall be made publicly available fourteen days after entry of this
`Decision.
`Paper 21, Paper 39, Paper 47, Paper 48, and Exhibits 1077, 2094,
`2096, 2098, 2099, and 2100 have not been the subject of a motion to seal
`and shall be made publicly available fourteen days after entry of this
`Decision. Redacted versions of certain of these documents (Paper 22,
`Paper 40, Paper 49, Exhibit 1078, and Exhibit 2101), and the duplicate
`Paper 50, shall be expunged. Either party may file a request, no later than
`February 23, 2018, for reconsideration of this Decision pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), or the party that filed the document may request that it
`be expunged by the same date.
`Reflecting the agreement of Petitioner and Patent Owner, Paper 55
`and Exhibits 2035, 2040, and 2078 shall be made publicly available upon
`issuance of this Decision.
`Finally, Petitioner is authorized to file an amended set of objections to
`Patent Owner’s demonstratives.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the First Motion to Seal is granted, in part, and that
`the redacted portions of Exhibit 2080 and all of Exhibit 2087 shall remain
`under seal;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the First Motion to Seal is, in all other
`regards, denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Motion to Seal is granted, in
`part, and Paper 33, the redacted portions of Exhibits 1045 and 1046, and the
`entirety of Exhibit 1061 shall remain under seal;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Motion to Seal is, in all other
`regards, denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1049, 1050, 1062, 1063, 2031,
`2034, 2036, 2039, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2055, 2056, 2057,
`2063, 2077, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, and 2091 shall be made publicly
`available fourteen days after entry of this Decision, unless Petitioner or
`Patent Owner files, no later than February 23, 2018, a revised Motion to Seal
`directed to these exhibits or the party that filed the exhibit requests
`expungement of the exhibit;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paper 21, Paper 39, Paper 47, Paper 48,
`and Exhibits 1077, 2094, 2096, 2098, 2099, and 2100 shall be made publicly
`available, and Paper 22, Paper 40, Paper 49, Paper 50, Exhibit 1078, and
`Exhibit 2101 shall be expunged fourteen days after entry of this Decision,
`unless, no later than February 23, 2018, Petitioner or Patent Owner files a
`request for reconsideration of this Decision or the party that filed the paper
`or exhibit requests expungement of the paper or exhibit;
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paper 55 and Exhibits 2035, 2040, and
`2078 shall be made publicly available upon issuance of this Decision; and,
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file, no later
`than February 16, 2018, an amended set of objections to Patent Owner’s
`demonstratives that contain no substantive changes from the originally filed
`objections other than to amend the identification of the demonstrative that is
`the subject of the objection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey
`JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL, LLP
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Brian Egan
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`began@mnat.com
`
`Catherine Nyarady
`PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
`cnyarady@paulweiss.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer A. Sklenar
`Wallace Wu
`ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
`jennifer.sklenar@aporter.com
`wallace.wu@porter.com
`
`
`18
`
`
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
