Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03129/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03129-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL—CASE NOS. C08-03129 MMC & C08-04234 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Matthew B. Lehr (Bar No. 213139) 

Diem-Suong T. Nguyen (Bar No. 237557) 

David J. Lisson (Bar No. 250994) 

Chung G. Suh (Bar No. 244889) 

Jeremy Brodsky (Bar No. 257674) 

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 

1600 El Camino Real 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 752-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 752-2111 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a 

VNUS Medical Technologies 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a 

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

LEAD CASE NO. C08-03129 MMC 

CASE NO. C08-03129 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN 

PART AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND TVS’s 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL (D.I. 224 and 232) 

[CIVIL L.R. 7-11, 79-5(d)] 

Plaintiff,

v.

BIOLITEC, INC., DORNIER MEDTECH 

AMERICA, INC., and NEW STAR LASERS, 

INC. d/b/a COOLTOUCH, INC.,

Defendants.

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a 

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C08-04234 MMC 

(consolidated with C08-03129 MMC) 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOTAL VEIN SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a 

TOTAL VEIN SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 250 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 3
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL—CASE NOS. C08-03129 MMC & C08-04234 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion and TVS’s Motion to File Documents Under 

Seal dated July 16, 2010 (D.I. 224 and 232), by which Defendants seek leave to file under seal 

unredacted versions of certain documents submitted in conjunction with their reply briefs in support 

of their Motion for Summary Judgment that the ‘084 Patent Claims are Obvious (“Defendants’ § 

103 Reply”), Motion for Summary Judgment that the Asserted ‘433 and ‘970 Claims are Invalid for 

Lack of Written Description (“Defendants’ § 112 Reply”), and TVS’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of No Contributory Infringement (collectively, “Defendants’ Reply Briefs”). Having 

reviewed the parties’ submissions filed in support of the motions, the Court rules as follows: 

1. The motions are GRANTED in part, specifically, as to the following documents that 

plaintiff has shown contain material properly filed under seal (see Kertz Decl., filed July 20, 2010), 

each of which the requesting party is directed to file under seal, no later than five calendar days 

from the date of this order. See General Order 62 (“If a motion to file under seal is granted in full 

or in part, the requesting party will e-file the document according the procedure outlined in the 

FAQs on the ECF website.”). 

x Exhibit 73 to the Declaration of Charles T. Steenburg in Support of Summary 

Judgment Reply Briefs Filed by biolitec, Inc. and Other Defendants, filed on July 

16, 2010 

x Redacted pages 1 (ln. 18) and 2 (lns. 12-16) of Defendants’ § 112 Reply, filed on 

July 16, 2010 

x Redacted page 6 (lns. 19-22, 27-29) of Defendants’ § 103 Reply, filed on July 16, 

2010.

2. The motions are DENIED in part, specifically, as to the following documents, in 

light of plaintiff’s having withdrawn its prior designation of confidentiality, each of which the 

requesting party is directed to file in the public record no later than five calendar days from the date 

of this order. 

x Exhibit FFF to the Declaration of John K. Buche in Support of the Reply to VNUS’s 

Opposition to TVS’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Contributory 

Infringement, filed on July 16, 2010 

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 250 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 3
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL—CASE NOS. C08-03129 MMC & C08-04234 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

x Designated portions of Defendants’ Reply Briefs not identified above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________ 2010 

 

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

July 28, /s/ Vaughn R Walker for

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 250 Filed 07/28/10 Page 3 of 3