UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EYE THERAPIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00142
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,293,742
`
`—————
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EYE THERAPIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00142
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,293,742
`
`—————
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.16 and 42.54, Petitioner, Slayback Pharma
`
`LLC, respectfully requests that the Board seal the confidential versions of
`
`Petitioner’s Exhibit Nos. 1047 and 1051 and Petitioner’s Reply, filed herewith.
`
`The portions of the Exhibits that Petitioner seeks to seal contain information that
`
`Patent Owner has identified as confidential pursuant to the proposed protective
`
`order in this proceeding.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in an
`
`inter partes review are available to the public, but parties may file a motion to seal
`
`confidential information. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 (2021). “The standard for
`
`granting a motion to seal is ‘for good cause.’” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper No. 34 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`states that the 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.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (2012).
`
`On August 29, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal and Enter
`
`Stipulated Proposed Protective Order. Paper No. 29. With that motion, Patent
`
`Owner identified and served various documents containing information that it
`
`identified as being non-public excerpts of Bausch & Lomb’s NDA and Bausch &
`
`Lomb’s sensitive business and financial information. Id., pp.3-4. Petitioners did
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`not oppose that motion. In this motion, Petitioner seeks to seal documents that
`
`contain information that Patent Owners have identified as confidential pursuant to
`
`the proposed protective order.
`
`I.
`
`Identification of Confidential Information
`
`Petitioner seeks to seal Exhibit No. 1051 in its entirety and portions of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit No. 1047.
`
`Exhibit No. 1051 is the transcript of the deposition of John Ferris, which
`
`Patent Owner designated confidential under the proposed protective order.
`
`Exhibit No. 1047 is the Expert Declaration of Ivan T. Hofmann, which
`
`addresses information that Patent Owner has identified as confidential, including
`
`information that was filed under seal with the Patent Owner Response. A redacted
`
`version of Exhibit No. 1047 is being publicly filed concurrently with this motion.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply similarly addresses information that Patent Owner has
`
`identified as confidential, including information that was filed under seal with the
`
`Patent Owner Response. A redacted version of Petitioner’s Reply is being publicly
`
`filed concurrently with this motion.
`
`II. Good Cause Exists for Sealing the Confidential Information
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit Nos. 1047 and 1051 contain information that
`
`Patent Owner has identified as being confidential and sensitive competitive market
`
`analysis, business strategy, and financial information of Bausch & Lomb relating
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`to Lumify®. According to Patent Owner, good cause exists to seal this confidential
`
`information because it contains details about Bausch & Lomb’s sensitive business
`
`information, which is essential to the running of the business. Paper No. 29, pp.5-
`
`6. Based on Patent Owner’s representations, this information would be valuable to
`
`Bausch & Lomb’s competitors and harmful to the company if made public. Id.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner requests that the Board seal the unredacted versions of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit Nos. 1047 and 1051.
`
`III. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`The parties have conferred and Patent Owner does not oppose this motion.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner respectively requests that the
`
`Board grant this motion to seal.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Linnea P. Cipriano/
`
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cell: (443) 235-1739
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback
`Pharma LLC
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL was served on December 16, 2022, by
`
`electronic mail to:
`
`Bryan Diner
`
` bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Justin Hasford
`
`Justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Caitlin O’Connell caitlin.oconnell@finnegan.com
`
`Christina Yang christina.yang@finnegan.com
`
`December 16, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Linnea P. Cipriano/
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Cell: (443) 235-1739
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback
`Pharma LLC
`
`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
