Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 93
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 8, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`Case IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`Case IPR2017-015281 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`________________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order pertains to both noted proceedings. We exercise our discretion to
`issue a single Order for entry in each proceeding. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for subsequent papers without prior Board approval.
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 8, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`Case IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`Case IPR2017-015281 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`________________
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
`ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order pertains to both noted proceedings. We exercise our discretion to
`issue a single Order for entry in each proceeding. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for subsequent papers without prior Board approval.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`IPR2017-01528 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 12, 2018, we entered a Final Written Decision (Paper 89,2
`“Final Decision” or “Final Dec.”) in each of the above-referenced proceedings.
`In each Final Decision, we denied Petitioner’s motion to seal portions of its sur-
`sur-reply that reference Exhibits 2065–2069 without prejudice to Patent Owner.
`Final Dec. 47. Although Petitioner represented that Patent Owner had designated
`the information Petitioner requested to seal confidential, we determined that
`Petitioner failed to provide good cause for sealing the information. Id. However,
`we authorized Patent Owner to file a motion to seal that information in Petitioner’s
`sur-sur-reply. Id.
`On December 20, 2017, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 93,
`“Motion”). In the Motion, Patent Owner requests to seal the portions of
`Petitioner’s sur-sur-reply that Petitioner requested to seal in the motion we denied
`and requests that we approve the redactions in the publicly-filed version of
`Petitioner’s sur-sur-reply (Paper 88) that the parties’ jointly prepared. Id. at 1.
`Patent Owner also requests that we approve the sealed and public versions of its
`updated exhibit list (Papers 91, 92). Id.
`We grant the motion for the reasons set forth below.
`
`DISCUSSION
`“There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a quasi-
`judicial administrative proceeding open to the public, especially in an inter partes
`review which determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and
`therefore affects the rights of the public.” Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the papers and exhibits filed in
`IPR2017-01526.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`IPR2017-01528 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`
`LLC, IPR2012–00001, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34). For this
`reason, except as otherwise ordered, the record of an inter partes review trial shall
`be made available to the public. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. That
`standard includes a showing that “(1) the information sought to be sealed is truly
`confidential, (2) a concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there
`exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on the specific information sought to be
`sealed, and (4) on balance, an interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the
`strong public interest in having an open record.” Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon
`Research, Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053, slip op. at 4 (Paper 27) (PTAB Jan. 19,
`2018) (informative).
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s sur-sur-reply and Patent Owner’s
`updated exhibits list contain confidential information and that Patent Owner would
`suffer concrete harm if the information was publicly disclosed. Mot. 3. In
`particular, Patent Owner represents that Petitioner’s sur-sur-reply “summarizes and
`quotes confidential submissions made by Hoechst Marion Roussel to, and records
`of correspondence with, the FDA regarding the approval of its insulin glargine
`product.” Id. Patent Owner further states that the sur-sur-reply “summarizes
`confidential and proprietary research and development, testing procedures,
`analyses and results regarding [Patent Owner’s] Lantus [product]” and that the
`updated exhibit list “refers to and describes now sealed EX2065–EX2069.” Id.
`(noting further that the sur-sur-reply and updated exhibit list refer to research,
`development, testing, clinical, manufacturing, packaging, and pharmacological
`information). Petitioner did not oppose the Motion.
`After having considered the Motion and Patent Owner’s representations
`therein, we determine Patent Owner establishes good cause for sealing the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`IPR2017-01528 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`
`requested information. Patent Owner demonstrates that the information it seeks to
`seal consists of confidential and proprietary research and development information,
`confidential packaging specifications, confidential regulatory submissions, and
`confidential commercial information. And we see little harm to the public’s
`interest in restricting access to the information because we did not rely on any
`confidential information in the Final Decision. Also, the public versions of
`Petitioner’s sur-sur-reply and Patent Owner’s updated exhibit list appear to redact
`only the information that Patent Owner seeks to seal in in each Motion.
`We further note that the record of each proceeding shall be preserved in its
`entirety and that no sealed document will be expunged or made public, pending the
`outcome of any appeal taken from the Final Decision. The sealed documents may
`be made public at the conclusion of any appeal. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). At that time, either party
`may file a motion to expunge the sealed documents from the record pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal in each proceeding
`(IPR2017-01526 Paper 93; IPR2017-01528 Paper 91) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01526 (Patent 7,476,652 B2)
`IPR2017-01528 (Patent 7,713,930 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey Guise
`Douglas Carsten
`Richard Torczon
`Lorelei Westin
`Clark Lin
`Nancy Zhang
`Alina Litoshyk
`Nicole W. Stafford
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`jguise@wsgr.com
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`lwestin@wsgr.com
`clin@wsgr.com
`nzhang@wsgr.com
`alitoshyk@wsgr.com
`nstafford@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Elizabeth Weiswasser
`Anish Desai
`Aaron Pereira
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`aaron.pereira@weil.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
