`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`B. BRAUN MELSUNGEN AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-01589
`U.S. Patent No. 8,597,249
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01589
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`Petitioner Becton, Dickinson and Company (“BD” or “Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully submits this Motion to Seal.
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, and for the reasons set forth
`
`below, Petitioner Becton, Dickinson & Company hereby moves for leave to file
`
`under seal the redacted information contained within Petitioner’s Reply,
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend, as well as
`
`the exhibits and declarations filed in connection therewith.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Although “the default rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review
`
`are open and available for access by the public,” a party may file a motion with the
`
`Board to seal confidential information that is protected from disclosure. Garmin v.
`
`Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 34 (PTAB March 14, 2013). “The standard
`
`for granting a motion to seal is ‘for good cause.’” Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R § 42.54).
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012), states that the “rules identify confidential information in a manner
`
`consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 26(c)(1)(G), which
`
`provides for protective orders for trade secret or other confidential research,
`
`development, or commercial information.”
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01589
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`The parties have conferred and agreed to the provisions of the Protective
`
`Order set forth in Exhibit 2025 and have stipulated to be bound to the terms set
`
`forth therein. Exhibit 2026 shows the proposed modifications from the Board’s
`
`Default Protective Order, to which the parties have stipulated, in redline. The
`
`Protective Order provides:
`
`(ii) 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 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. The
`
`redacted information shall remain under seal unless, upon motion of a party
`
`and after a hearing on the issue, or sua sponte, the Board determines that
`
`some or all of the redacted information does not qualify for confidential
`
`treatment.
`
`(Ex. 2025).
`
`Here, Exhibits 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052,
`
`1053, 1054, 1056, 1057, 1062, 1063, 1088, 1089, 1090, and 1091 and the redacted
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01589
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`portions of Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Contingent Motion to Amend, and the accompanying Griffis and Stout declarations
`
`(Exhibits 1064 and 1065) consist of or describe certain documents that Petitioner
`
`has designated as PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL, indicating that they
`
`contain or reflect confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or commercially
`
`sensitive information. Petitioner’s confidential documents largely consist of
`
`product development, technical, and market analysis documents. These materials
`
`contain detailed information about Petitioner’s process for designing and
`
`developing products and confidential technical details of those products. They also
`
`contain detailed information about Petitioner’s market and competitor analysis.
`
`Petitioner’s interest in protecting its confidential business information outweighs
`
`the public’s interest in viewing that information. See Garmin, Paper 36 at 9
`
`(finding that the public’s interest in having access to a party’s confidential business
`
`information, not related to patent validity, is “minimal”). Furthermore, Petitioner
`
`is seeking to seal only portions of Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend, and the accompanying declarations
`
`to the extent it reveals the confidential information. Accordingly, Petitioner is
`
`submitting a redacted, public version of Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend, Supplemental Declaration of Jack
`
`Griffis, III in Support of Petitioner’s Reply and Opposition to Motion to Amend,
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01589
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`and Declaration of Marty Stout in Support of Petitioner’s Oppositions to Motions
`
`to Amend rather than sealing these documents. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756-01, 48761 (Aug. 14, 2012) (noting that parties are
`
`encouraged “to redact sensitive information, where possible, rather than seeking to
`
`seal entire documents”). Based on Petitioner’s designations, there is good cause to
`
`seal the designated information and exhibits.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`
`The undersigned counsel certifies the information sought to be sealed by this
`
`Motion to Seal has not, to their knowledge, been published or otherwise made
`
`public. Petitioner made efforts to maintain the confidentiality of this information
`
`in a related district court proceeding. In that district court proceeding, much of the
`
`information that Petitioner presently moves to seal was produced pursuant to a
`
`Protective Order agreed upon by the Parties and was designated
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to that Protective
`
`Order.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board
`
`grant its motion to seal.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 27, 2018
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01589
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Heather M. Petruzzi/
` Heather M. Petruzzi (71,270)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`