RECE\VED 

JUL 2 \ 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY . 

AT s~~L-U-AM-T ..... W~AL""=s':":"H _M 

CLERK 

HORIZON PHARMA, INC. and POZEN 

INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC. 

AND DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, 

LTD., 

Defendants. 

.Civil Action No. 3:11-02317 (MLC) (DEA) 

Civil Action No. 3:13-00091 (MLC) (DEA) 

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

MOTION DATE: August 3, 2015 

1Plt6POSEB) ORDER GRANTING DRL'S MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN 

MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH DRL'S SECOND MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,926,907 

This matter having been brought to the Court through Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,_ttd., and 

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,-Inc.'s, (collectively "DRL'') Motion to Seal plJl"suant t~ Local Civil 

Rules5.3(c) and 7.1, filed July 9, 2015, and this Court having fully considered the Memorandum 

ofLaw in in Support of the Motion to Seal and the Declaration of Alan H. Pollack in Support of 

the Motion to Seal, any submissions in further support thereof, and any opposition thereto, as 

well as the record before it, the Court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of 

law: 

THE COURT FINDS that the following materials consist of, reference, or contain 

documents and information designated by DRL as "Attorney Confidential" pursuant to the 

Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order that has been entered in this case (D.E. 49): 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 351 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 10122
• Designated portions of DRL 's Btief in Support of its Second Motion for 

Summary Judgment o/Non-lnfringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907, which 

discuss, quote and/or summarize DRL·'s confidential information, including 

information concerning and comprising DRL 's Abbreviated New Drug 

Application No. 204206 and the opinions of DRL 's experts and Plaintiffs' 

experts; and 

• Designated portions of the accompanying Declaration of Ellen T. Lowenthal in 

Support of DRL 's Second Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement 

of U.S. Patent No. 6,926,907 and the exhibits attached thereto which comprise, 

discuss, quote and/or summarize DRL 's confidential information and the 

opinions of DRL 's experts and Plaintiffs' experts; ' 

tBE COURT FURTHER FINDS that these materials constitute valuable business 

inform.ation, confidential research and development information, and formulation and 

manufacturing process information, and were created at considerable expense by DRL. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS thatthese materials are highly confidential to D~ 

and contain ~ensitive and proprietary information and trade secrets. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the materials that are the subject of this Motion 

to Seal constitute valuable information concerning DRL's confidential business practices, 

confidential research and development, confidential clinical information, confidential regulatory 

information, and confidential formulation and manufacturing process information, and this 

information was created at considerable expense by DRL and others working with or for them. 

These materials are highly confidential to DRL and contain sensitive and proprietary information 

and trade secrets ofDRL. This pharmaceutical patent action involves confidential research and 

development information and information about DRL's proposed pharmaceutical products. The 

current proceedings are a motion for summary judgment in which DRL is defending itself 

against plaintiffs Horizon Pharma, Inc.' s and Pozen, Inc.' s (collectively, "Plaintiffs"') allegation.s 

that certain ofDRL's proposed pharmaceutical products will infringe certain claims of U.S. 

Pat~nt No. 6,926_,907. DRL cannot respond to Plaintiffs' allegations of patent infringement 

2 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 351 Filed 07/21/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 10123
without discussing many confidential and proprietary details concerning pRL's proposed 

pharmaceutical products, their formulation and.manufacturing processes used tQ make them. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the interests of DRL that warrant confidential 

treatment of these materials are the prospects that valuable research and development and 

regulatory infonnation and confidential information related to DRL's formulation and processes, 

all of which is proprietary to DRL, would be lost, and that DRL's business competitors would 

gain an unfair advantage if these competitors were to gain access to the materials and the 

commercially sensitive and proprietary information contained therein. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the interests of the public that warrant granting 

the Motion to.Seal include the public's interest in not burdening litigants' access to the Court by 

requiring public disclosure of valuable confidential information as a condition oflitigating their 

rights. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that no less restrictive alternative is available to 

prevent the defined and serious injury to DRL because DRL must rely on these confidential 

materials to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint of patent infringement and in Support of DRL' s 

Second Motion for Summary Judgment ofNon-Infringement ofU.S. Patent No .. 6,926,907. 

DRL's request to.seal.this information has bee.n ilatrowlytailored to protect only confidential 

information. 

THE COURT FURTHER FINDS compliance with the dictates set forth in Local Civil 

Rule 5.3( c )(2). 

THE FOREGOING FINDINGS are suppbrted by relevant case law holding that the 

right of public access to court filings is not absolute artd may be overcome by a showing such as 

made here, in the discretion of the trial court. See NiXon v. ·Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

589, 598-99 (1978). The court, upon such a proper showing, ''may in its discretion prevent 

3 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 351 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 10124
confidential materials from being 'transmuted into materials presumptiVely subject to public 

access."' Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Phatm$. USA, Inc., No. 08~133l(DMC)(MF), 2009 WL 2256484, at 

*2 (D.N.J. July 28, 2009) (citation omitted). 

THEREFORE, for good cause shown, and in order to preserve the confidentiality of the 

aforementioned information: 

IT IS ORDERED that the listed documents shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk 

of the Court. 

;2 I 

Date: Jol'j~~Ol5 Douglas 

~.· E. Arp~rt :~ 

United St.ates Magfstrate Judge 

1050198.w 

4 

Case 3:11-cv-02317-MLC-DEA Document 351 Filed 07/21/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 10125