Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., Denying Motion to Seal and Joint Motion for Protective Order IPR2014-00377; IPR2014-00378; IPR2014-00379
Friday, November 21, 2014

Takeaway: If the parties wish to impose restrictions on confidential information beyond those in the Default Protective Order, they must show good cause for such restrictions, even if the parties stipulate to the restrictions.

In its Decision, the Board denied without prejudice Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal and a Joint Motion for Entry of a Stipulated Protective Order. The parties filed the Joint Motion attaching the proposed Stipulated Protective Order, and Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal under the proposed Protective Order.  The parties agreed to modify the Default Protective Order to add a number of heightened categories of confidential information, but the Board found that the categories were not clearly defined and did not explain any differences between certain designations, including any distinction in terms of who may access any particular category of documents.

Citing to Garmin International v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper 34, Mar. 14, 2013), the Board found that Patent Owner had not met its burden of sealing the requested exhibits because it had not established the need for multiple categories of confidential information in the proposed Protective Order nor had it identified with sufficient clarity the persons who may access any particular category of confidential information under the proposed Protective Order.  Therefore, Patent Owner had not shown the requisite good cause.  The Board denied without prejudice both the Joint Motion and the Motion to Seal, advising the parties that if they wish to request entry of the proposed Protective Order, they must show good cause for the added restrictions.  Until then, the Board will apply the Default Protective Order to information filed and designated confidential.

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00377; IPR2014-00378; IPR2014-00379
Paper 29: Decision Denying Without Prejudice Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal and Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Protective Order
Dated: November 19, 2014
Patents: 6,635,280 B2; 6,340,475 B2
Before: Erica A. Franklin, Grace Karaffa Obermann, and Tina E. Hulse
Written by: Obermann

 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins