Free Motion to Seal - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 3

Arnold B. Calmann ([email protected]) Jane Jhun ([email protected]) SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward ([email protected]) Thomas P. Heneghan ([email protected]) Shane A. Brunner ([email protected]) Edward J. Pardon ([email protected]) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275

Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,) ) ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, ) IPR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) SHIONOGI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI ) KAISHA, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, and ) AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

Case No. 07-CV-06020 (MLC)(JJH)

NOTICE OF MOTION TO SEAL Motion Date: April 7, 2008 DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

TO:

Andrew T. Berry, Esq. Jonathan M.H. Short, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 3

Mark Anania, Esq. MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP Fourth Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, NJ 07102 Of Counsel Ford F. Farabow, Esq. Charles E. Lipsey, Esq. York M. Faulkner, Esq. Mary Ferguson, Esq. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Henry J. Renk, Esq. FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited ("Aurobindo India") and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. ("Aurobindo USA"), shall appear before the Hon. John J. Hughes, U.S.M.J., United States District Court, Room 5W, Trenton, New Jersey 08608 and will move this Court pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), for an Order to Seal EXHIBIT A OF THE MARCH 14, 2008 DECLARATION OF EDWARD J. PARDON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT Defendants shall rely upon the accompanying Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that are submitted herewith. A proposed form of Order is also submitted for the Court's consideration.

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 3

Dated: March 14, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Arnold B. Calmann Arnold B. Calmann Jane Jhun SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward Thomas P. Heneghan Edward J. Pardon MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 8

Arnold B. Calmann ([email protected]) Jane Jhun ([email protected]) SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward ([email protected]) Thomas P. Heneghan ([email protected]) Shane A. Brunner ([email protected]) Edward J. Pardon ([email protected]) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,) ) ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, ) IPR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) SHIONOGI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI ) ) KAISHA, Plaintiffs, v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, and AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 07-CV-06020 (MLC)(JJH)

Motion Date: April 7, 2008

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILE

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT A OF THE MARCH 14, 2008 DECLARATION OF EDWARD J. PARDON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................................................1 LEGAL ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................................................1 I. II. Legal Standards ...................................................................................................................................2 Aurobindo India Meets the Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(b) By Showing That There Are Legitimate Interests that Warrant Sealing...........................................................................3 III. Aurobindo India Meets The Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(c) By Showing That Serious Injury That Would Result If The Confidential Documents Are Not Placed Under Seal ............................................................................................................................................4 IV. Aurobindo India Meets The Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(d) By Showing That No Less Restrictive Alternative Is Available ....................................................................................4 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................................5

i

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases Faulman v. Security Mutual Financial, 2006 WL 1541059 at *1 (D.N.J. May 31, 2006) ............. 3 Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)............................... 2 In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) ....................................... 3 Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir, 1988) ............................................................ 3 Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994) ........................................................... 3 Miller v. Indiana Hosy., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) .............................................................. 2 Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) ............................................... 3 Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994) .............................................. 4 Publicker Indus. Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)......................................... 2, 4 Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991) ............. 3 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Fleet Indus. Co. Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa. 1981)............................................................................................................................................ 2 Federal Statutes Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7)................................................................................................................... 2 Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) ................................................................................................................... 1

ii

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 4 of 8

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited ("Aurobindo India") and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. ("Aurobindo USA") (collectively "Defendants") submit this brief in support of their motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal Exhibit A of the March 14, 2008 Declaration of Edward J. Pardon in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ("Dismissal Declaration Exhibit"). As confirmed by the Declaration of Edward J. Pardon in Support of Motion to Seal, submitted concurrently herewith, the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit contains information relating to Aurobindo India's Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA"). The facts in the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit could be used to ascertain whether Aurobindo India maintains "First to File" status1 as well as the current progress towards FDA approval. Disclosure of this information could seriously injure and impair one or more Defendants' competitive posture in the marketplace. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully ask this Court to grant their motion to seal these documents for the reasons set forth herein. STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendants respectfully incorporate herein the factual details set forth in the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted herewith regarding the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit sought to be sealed herein. Those facts demonstrate the highly confidential and proprietary nature of the information that is the subject of this motion.

21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iv) grants 180 days of exclusivity to all those applicants who file on the first day that any party files an ANDA. This 180 day period is extraordinarily valuable to those who qualify and whether an applicant is "first to file" is not general knowledge.

1

1

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 5 of 8

LEGAL ARGUMENT I. Legal Standards There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records. Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988). The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that "the material is the kind of information that courts will protect." Miller v. Indiana Hosy., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Publicker Indus. Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed to the public. In particular, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) provides for the protection by courts of materials containing "trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information[,]" upon motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant's competitive standing in the marketplace. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Fleet Indus. Co. Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) identifies the standards for sealing or otherwise restricting public access to filed materials. Specifically, Local Rule 5.3(c)(2) requires a showing of: (a) (b) (c) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.

Generally, the information contained in the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit that is the subject of this motion relates to commercially sensitive and/or proprietary non-public business and financial information of Aurobindo India. Specifically, the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit contains details of Aurobindo India's ANDA for rosuvastatin, including the date of application

2

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 6 of 8

and information useful in determining Aurobindo India's progress towards FDA approval. This information is held in confidence by the FDA and is generally unavailable to the public. Disclosure to the public would result in substantial competitive harm to one or more Defendants. II. Aurobindo India Meets the Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(b) By Showing That There Are Legitimate Interests that Warrant Sealing Courts have recognized that the public right of access to judicial proceedings and records is not absolute and may be rebutted. Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991). "Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir, 1988)(quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Courts may deny access to and seal a document when it encompasses business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. See id. (citation omitted). The District Court of New Jersey has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and other confidential information in documents warrant the sealing of such documents. "A well-settled exception to the right of access is the protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm." In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted) "The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs against public access and, accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected from disclosure." Id. (citations omitted). Moreover, commercially sensitive information from which a litigant's market competitiveness may be harmed is often sealed from public access. See Faulman v. Security Mutual Financial, 2006 WL 1541059 at *1 (D.N.J. May 31, 2006); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 7 of 8

The private interests at stake in this action warrant the relief sought. Here, plaintiffs and defendants--private parties--are in a dispute relating to patents and a generic drug product. The sealing of the identified document requested herein serves to protect the private proprietary business interests of defendant Aurobindo India. Publicly disclosing the subject confidential information may pose a substantial harm risk of harm to Aurobindo India's legitimate business interests and competitive position. III. Aurobindo India Meets The Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(c) By Showing That Serious Injury That Would Result If The Confidential Documents Are Not Placed Under Seal This Court has discretion to balance the factors for and against access to court documents. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994). Protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm, and is clearly defined as a serious injury. See Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1071. If relief is not granted, Aurobindo India's highly sensitive and confidential business information will be compromised, exposing them to substantial financial risks. Unless the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit is filed under seal, competitors and others will have access to important confidential and/or proprietary business information Aurobindo India that ordinarily would not be available to the public, let alone to its competitors in this highly competitive industry. Competitors and others in the marketplace might exploit such information to their advantage and benefit, and to Aurobindo India's unfair detriment. IV. Aurobindo India Meets The Requirement of Rule 5.3(c)(2)(d) By Showing That No Less Restrictive Alternative Is Available Once confidential information is disclosed to the public, it can never again be sealed or maintained as private. No less restrictive alternative is available because the request is tailored

4

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-2

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 8 of 8

to only the specific confidential Dismissal Declaration Exhibit, the release of which would pose a financial and competitive risk to one or more Defendants. Accordingly, the only way to protect Aurobindo India's confidential interests is to seal the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their motion in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, SAIBER LLC Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. /s/ Arnold B Calmann Arnold B. Calmann Jane Jhun One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward Thomas P. Heneghan Edward J. Pardon MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
5

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 6

Arnold B. Calmann ([email protected]) Jane Jhun ([email protected]) SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward ([email protected]) Thomas P. Heneghan ([email protected]) Shane A. Brunner ([email protected]) Edward J. Pardon ([email protected]) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,) Case No. 07-CV-06020 (MLC)(JJH) ) ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, ) IPR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) SHIONOGI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI ) KAISHA, ) Motion Date: April 7, 2008 Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY ) FILED AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, and ) AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT A OF THE MARCH 14, 2008 DECLARATION OF EDWARD J. PARDON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 6

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited ("Aurobindo India") and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. ("Aurobindo USA") hereby submit Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of their Motion to Seal filed with the Court on March 14, 2008. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) places the burden of proof on the moving party as to why a motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access should be granted. Specifically, it requires a showing of: (1) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (2) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; (3) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (4) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available Defendants seek to seal Exhibit A of the March 14, 2008 Declaration of Edward J. Pardon in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ("Dismissal Declaration Exhibit"). Set forth below are the findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing each of the elements of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c). These findings of fact and conclusions of law support the granting of Defendants' Motion to Seal the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit identified herein: I. The Nature of the Materials or Proceedings at Issue A. 1.) Findings of Fact The Dismissal Declaration Exhibit refers extensively to Aurobindo India's

Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") and contains highly confidential and/or proprietary information including information related to whether Aurobindo India enjoys first-to-file status, details regarding the status of completion of Aurobindo India's

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 6

ANDA, and details that could allow a competitor to ascertain its likelihood of approval. B. 2.) Conclusions of Law There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial

proceedings and records. Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing Littlejohn v. BIC Corporation, 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988). The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that "the material is the kind of information that courts will protect." Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). 3.) This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed

to the public. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) allows the protection by courts of materials containing "trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information[,]" upon motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant's competitive standing in the marketplace. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa. 1981). II. The Legitimate Private or Public Interest which Warrants the Relief Sought A. 4.) Findings of Fact The Dismissal Declaration Exhibit sought to be sealed contains ANDA related

information that Aurobindo India asserts is confidential and proprietary. 5.) Defendants have an interest in not publicly disclosing this information and rely on

such information to gain a competitive advantage in the generics pharmaceutical industry. B. 6.) Conclusions of Law Courts have recognized that the public right of access to judicial proceedings and

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 4 of 6

records is not absolute. Id. (citations omitted). 7.) The presumption of public access is not absolute and may be rebutted. Id. (citing

Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991). "Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 678 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 8.) Courts may deny access to and seal a document when it encompasses business

information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. See id. (citation omitted). 9.) The District Court of New Jersey has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and

other confidential information in documents warrant the sealing of such documents. "A well-settled exception to the right of access is the `protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm.'" In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted). "The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs against public access and, accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected from disclosure." Id. (citations omitted). 10.) Commercially sensitive information, such as information from which profit

margins can be deduced, and from which a litigant's market competitiveness may be harmed is often sealed from public access. Faulman v. Security Mutual Financial, 2006 WL 1541059 at *1 (D.N.J. May 31, 2006). 11.) Information that reflects a corporation's price competitiveness in the marketplace

constitutes confidential commercial information. Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112,

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 5 of 6

114 (E.D. Pa. 1994). III. The Clearly Defined and Serious Injury that would Result if the Relief Sought is Not Granted A. 12.) Findings of Fact Given its reference to, and disclosure of, non-public business information that is

otherwise unavailable to third parties, including ANDA information, the public disclosure of the Dismissal Declaration Exhibit without redactions poses a substantial risk of harm to Defendants' legitimate proprietary interests and competitive position. B. 13.) Conclusions of Law The district court has discretion to balance the factors for and against access to

court documents. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994). Protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as trade secrets or profit margin, is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm, and is clearly defined as a serious injury. See Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1071; Faulman, 2006 WL 1541059 at *1. IV. Why a Less Restrictive Alternative to the Relief Sought is not Available A. 14.) Findings of Fact Once confidential information is disclosed to the public, it can never again be

sealed or maintained as private. 15.) The disclosure of this confidential and/or proprietary information would pose a

financial and competitive risk to one or more Defendants. Accordingly, the only way to protect Aurobindo India's confidential interests is to seal the identified documents. B. 16.) Conclusions of Law Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2), a party seeking to seal documents must meet

-5-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 6 of 6

the fourth prong that a no less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is available. See Securimetrics, Inc. v. Iridian Techs., Inc., No. 03-cv-04394, 2006 WL 827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar 30, 2006). 17.) The sealing of confidential documents and information is an accepted practice in

the District of New Jersey. In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, passim. Dated: March 14, 2008. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Arnold B. Calmann Arnold B. Calmann Jane Jhun SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward Thomas P. Heneghan Edward J. Pardon MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. -6-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-4

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-4

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-4

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-5

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

Arnold B. Calmann ([email protected]) Jane Jhun ([email protected]) SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward ([email protected]) Thomas P. Heneghan ([email protected]) Shane A. Brunner ([email protected]) Edward J. Pardon ([email protected]) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,) ) ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, ) IPR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) SHIONOGI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI ) KAISHA, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, and ) AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

Case No. 07-CV-06020 (MLC)(JJH) ORDER TO SEAL Motion Date: April 7, 2008 DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendants Aurobindo Pharma

{00519705.DOC}

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-5

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 2

Limited ("Aurobindo India") and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. ("Aurobindo USA"), by and through their attorneys, SAIBER LLC and MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, in connection with their Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) Exhibit A of the March 14, 2008 Declaration of Edward J. Pardon in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and the Court having considered the papers submitted by Defendants in support of the within Motion, and any papers submitted by Plaintiffs herein in opposition thereto; and the Court having considered oral argument of the parties, if any; and having found that the standards of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) have been met and support the sealing of the foregoing documents, testimony and information, and for the reasons set forth in the record of the proceedings, and for other and good cause having been shown, IT IS on this ___ day of __________ 2008; ORDERED that Defendants' Motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal the subject documents, information and testimony be and the same is hereby granted; and it is further ORDERED, that said documents, information and testimony shall be sealed and shall be filed UNDER SEAL with this Court.

HONORABLE JOHN J. HUGHES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-6

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 3

Arnold B. Calmann ([email protected]) Jane Jhun ([email protected]) SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center 13th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Tel: 973.622.3333 Fax: 973.622.3349 Of Counsel: Jeffrey S. Ward ([email protected]) Thomas P. Heneghan ([email protected]) Shane A. Brunner ([email protected]) Edward J. Pardon ([email protected]) MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP One South Pinckney Street P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Tel: 608.257.3501 Fax: 608.283.2275 Attorneys for Defendants Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP,) ) ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED, ) IPR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ) SHIONOGI SEIYAKU KABUSHIKI ) KAISHA, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED, and ) AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., ) ) Defendants. )

Case No. 07-CV-06020 (MLC)(JJH)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-6

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 3

ARNOLD B. CALMANN, hereby certifies as follows: 1. I am an attorney-at-law of the State of New Jersey and admitted to

practice before the Courts of the State of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 2. I hereby certify that on this 14th day of March, 2008, I caused the

following documents to be served upon all counsel of record via ECF: Notice of Motion Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal Exhibit A to Declaration of Edward J. Pardon; Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal; Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal; Declaration of Edward J. Pardon in Support of Motion to Seal; Proposed Form of Order; and Certificate of Service 3. I also hereby certify that on this 14th day of March, 2008, I caused

the aforementioned documents to be served via electronic mail and first class mail upon the following: Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Ford F. Farabow York M. Faulkner Charles E. Lipsey [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

2

Case 1:08-cv-00359-JJF-LPS

Document 34-6

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 3

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway Suite 700 Cambridge MA 02142 Mary K. Ferguson, Esq. [email protected]

Fitzpatrick Cella Harper &Scinto 30 Rockefeller Center New York, New York 10112 Henry J. Renk [email protected]

McCarter & English Four Gateway Center 100 Mulberry Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Andrew Berry Jonathan M. Short Mark Anania [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Dated: March 14, 2008

/s/ Arnold B. Calmann Arnold B. Calmann

3