Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02420/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02420-19/pdf.json

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

---

1 

Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., 

INC., AND TAKEDA 

PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

TWI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

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, 

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

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

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

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

sealing motions under the “compelling reasons” standard. 

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

 

 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. 

Case 5:13-cv-02420-LHK Document 178 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling 

141 141-3 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 3: Expert 

Report of Dr. Brian Fennerty 

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because the 

request is not “narrowly 

tailored” and TWi did not file a 

supporting declaration. Civ. L. 

R. 79-5(b). 

148 148-3 Takeda’s Opposition to TWi’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment 

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.

148 148-5 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 44: 

Annotated Labelling for TWi’s 

proposed drug product

GRANTED. 

148 148-6 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 49: Expert 

Report of Dr. William N. 

Charman 

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. 

148 148-7 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 50: Reply 

Expert Report of Dr. William N. 

Charman 

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. 

148 148-8 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 52: Section 

2.3.P of TWi’s Amended ANDA

GRANTED. 

148 148-9 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 53: Section 

2.3.P.2 of TWi’s Amended 

ANDA

GRANTED. 

148 148-10 Takahashi Decl. Ex. 54: 

Declaration of Dr. William N. 

Charman 

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.

170 170-2 TWi’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment 

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.

170 142-6 Mizerk Decl. Ex T: Expert 

Report of Dr. Robert A. 

Bellantone Regarding Validity 

of the ’187 Patent

GRANTED. 

Case 5:13-cv-02420-LHK Document 178 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling 

170 142-8 Mizerk Decl. Ex HH: Deposition 

of Dr. William N. Charman 

DENIED WITHOUT 

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.

170 142-10 Mizerk Decl. Ex JJ: TWi’s 

ANDA letter to the FDA

GRANTED. 

170 142-12 Mizerk Decl. Ex KK: “Advantar 

Transmittal Memorandum for 

Revised Technical Report TKUC0001-RTR0001.01

GRANTED. 

170 142-14 Mizerk Decl. Ex LL: TWi’s 

ANDA

GRANTED. 

170 142-16 Mizerk Decl. Ex MM: Drug 

Product Release Test

GRANTED. 

170 142-18 Mizerk Decl. Ex NN: Expert 

Report of Dr. William N. 

Charman on Infringement 

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

as to the proposed redactions at 

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.

170 142-20 Mizerk Decl. Ex OO: Drug 

Product Release Test

GRANTED. 

170 142-22 

142-23 

142-24 

Mizerk Decl. Ex ZZ: Rebuttal 

Expert Report of Dr. Edmund J. 

Elder, Jr., on Non-Infringement 

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

as to the proposed redactions at 

paragraphs 17 and 18 because 

these paragraphs quote only 

from the claim language or the 

Court’s claim construction 

order; otherwise GRANTED.

171 171-2 Reply in Support of TWi’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment 

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

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.

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

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

No. 174. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 5:13-cv-02420-LHK Document 178 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

Case Nos.: 13-CV-02420-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

Dated: April 23, 2015 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:13-cv-02420-LHK Document 178 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 4