Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al v. TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Filing 178

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 141 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying as moot 142 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 148 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying as moot 154 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 170 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 171 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; finding as moot 172 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 174 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A.,
INC., AND TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.,

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
16
Defendant.
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 13-CV-02420-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 141, 148, 170,

19

171),1 which were filed in connection with TWi’s summary judgment motion. According to the

20

standards set forth in Kamakana v City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

21

2006), In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008), and Apple, Inc. v.

22

Samsung Electronics. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Court reviews the parties’

23

sealing motions under the “compelling reasons” standard.

24

With this standard in mind, the Court rules as follows:

25
26
27
28

1

Four days after the April 9, 2015 hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment,
TWi filed amended motions to seal, ECF Nos. 170, 171, which replaced the sealing motions TWi
had already filed, ECF Nos. 142, 154. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot TWi’s previously
filed sealing motions. ECF Nos. 142, 154.
1
Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
141
141-3

Document to be Sealed
Takahashi Decl. Ex. 3: Expert
Report of Dr. Brian Fennerty

148

148-3

Takeda’s Opposition to TWi’s
Motion for Summary Judgment

148

148-5

148

148-6

Takahashi Decl. Ex. 44:
Annotated Labelling for TWi’s
proposed drug product
Takahashi Decl. Ex. 49: Expert
Report of Dr. William N.
Charman

148

148-7

Takahashi Decl. Ex. 50: Reply
Expert Report of Dr. William N.
Charman

148

148-8

148

148-9

148

148-10

Takahashi Decl. Ex. 52: Section
2.3.P of TWi’s Amended ANDA
Takahashi Decl. Ex. 53: Section
2.3.P.2 of TWi’s Amended
ANDA
Takahashi Decl. Ex. 54:
Declaration of Dr. William N.
Charman

170

170-2

TWi’s Motion for Summary
Judgment

170

142-6

Mizerk Decl. Ex T: Expert
Report of Dr. Robert A.
Bellantone Regarding Validity
of the ’187 Patent
2

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ruling
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored” and TWi did not file a
supporting declaration. Civ. L.
R. 79-5(b).
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
as to the proposed redactions at
pages 21:23-26, 24:11-12
(heading), and 24:19-25:12
(entire paragraph) because the
briefing is related to the
doctrine of equivalents is not
sealable; otherwise GRANTED.
GRANTED.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
TWi should identify which
specific portions of the report it
seeks to seal.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
TWi should identify which
specific portions of the report it
seeks to seal.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
TWi should identify which
specific portions of the
declaration it seeks to seal.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
as to the proposed redactions at
pages 24:6-25:1 & n.8 because
the briefing is related to the
doctrine of equivalents is not
sealable; otherwise GRANTED.
GRANTED.

Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
170
142-8

4
5
6
7

170

142-10

170

142-12

170

142-14

170

142-16

170

142-18

170

142-20

170

142-22
142-23
142-24

171

171-2

8
9
10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Document to be Sealed
Ruling
Mizerk Decl. Ex HH: Deposition DENIED WITHOUT
of Dr. William N. Charman
PREJUDICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
TWi should identify which
specific portions of the
deposition it seeks to seal.
Mizerk Decl. Ex JJ: TWi’s
GRANTED.
ANDA letter to the FDA
Mizerk Decl. Ex KK: “Advantar GRANTED.
Transmittal Memorandum for
Revised Technical Report TKUC0001-RTR0001.01
Mizerk Decl. Ex LL: TWi’s
GRANTED.
ANDA
Mizerk Decl. Ex MM: Drug
GRANTED.
Product Release Test
Mizerk Decl. Ex NN: Expert
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Report of Dr. William N.
as to the proposed redactions at
Charman on Infringement
paragraphs 135, 140-41, 161,
165-66, 172, 179, and 185
because these paragraphs quote
only from the claim language or
the Court’s claim construction
order; otherwise GRANTED.
Mizerk Decl. Ex OO: Drug
GRANTED.
Product Release Test
Mizerk Decl. Ex ZZ: Rebuttal
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Expert Report of Dr. Edmund J. as to the proposed redactions at
Elder, Jr., on Non-Infringement
paragraphs 17 and 18 because
these paragraphs quote only
from the claim language or the
Court’s claim construction
order; otherwise GRANTED.
Reply in Support of TWi’s
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
Motion for Summary Judgment
as to the proposed redactions at
page 15:1-22 because the
briefing is related to the
doctrine of equivalents is not
sealable; otherwise GRANTED.

23
24

The parties must file any renewed motions to seal consistent with this Order within seven

25

(7) days. The Court also GRANTS TWi’s motion to remove an incorrectly filed document. ECF

26

No. 174.

27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28
3
Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

Dated: April 23, 2015

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL