`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case. IPR2017-00807
`
`Patent 8,168,620
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54,
`
`Petitioner Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Argentum”) respectfully requests that
`
`
`
`the Board seal Exhibit 1145.
`
`I.
`
`Reasons for Relief Requested
`
`The parties have previously conferred and agreed upon the entry of a
`
`Protective Order in this case. Patent Owner’s Motion for Entry of Stipulated
`
`Protective Order and Motion to Seal, Paper 23. The Protective Order provides all
`
`of the protections of the Default Protective Order of this Board (Appendix B of the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012)).
`
`II. Motion to Seal
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54. The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “the rules aim to
`
`strike a balance between the public’s interest in maintaining a complete and
`
`understandable file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive
`
`information.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48760. Those rules “identify confidential
`
`information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or other
`
`confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Id. (citing 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54). “Where confidentiality is alleged as to some but not all of the
`
`information submitted to the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’ or ‘Board’)],
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`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 version is
`
`confidential and should not be made publicly available.” Id. at 48770.
`
`Argentum moves to seal Exhibit 1145 as a courtesy to Patent Owner because
`
`it is a declaration from one of Petitioner’s witness that cites to and discusses
`
`formulation details of Meda/Mylan’s Dymista® product that Patent Owner Cipla’s
`
`has designated as confidential, and is the subject of Cipla’s own motion to seal.
`
`Paper 23. A redacted, public copy of Exhibit 1145 is being concurrently submitted
`
`as Exhibit 1165.
`
`III. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54
`
`The parties have conferred concerning the designation of the confidential
`
`information. Cipla does not oppose this motion.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons stated above, Argentum respectfully requests that this
`
`Motion to Seal be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Michael R. Houston/
`Michael R. Houston.
`Reg. No. 58,486
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion to
`
`Seal was served on March 6, 2018 on Counsel for Patent Owner via electronic mail
`
`
`
`to the following:
`
`
`
`dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com
` dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
` alarock-PTAB@skgf.com
` ueverett-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph P. Meara/
`
`Joseph P. Meara
`Reg. No. 44,932
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
