Opinion

Charles M. Lizza

William C. Baton

Alexander L. Callo

SAUL EWING LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

1037 Raymond Blvd., Suite 1520

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 286-6700

Attorneys for Defendants

Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals

Ireland Limited, and Amarin Corporation ple

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

.RE LABORATORIES INC.

DR, REDDY ORATORIES INC, Civil Action No.: 2)-10309 (RK)(TJB)

Plaintiff,

(Filed Electronically)

AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN

PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED,

AMARIN CORPORATION PLC,

Defendants,

: ANTITRU TIGATI os .

IN RE: VASCEPA ITRUSTHI ON Civil Action No, 21-12061 (RK)(TIB)

Civil Action No. 21-12747 (RIK)(TIB)

This Document Relates to:

All Actions

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC,,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 23-1016 (RK)(TIB)

AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN

PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED,

and AMARIN CORPORATION PLC,

Defendants.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC,,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-4341 (RK)(TIB)

AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN

PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED,

and AMARIN CORPORATION PLC,

Defendants.

APOTEX INC.,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-7041 (RIK)(TIB)

AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN

PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED,

AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, KD PHARMA-

BEXBACH GMBH, KD SWISS GMBH,

MARINE INGREDIENTS, LLC, INNOVA

SOFTGEL, LLC, 03 HOLDING GMBH, and

CAPITON AG,

Defendants.

ORDER TO SEAL

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the motion of Defendants

Amavin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Amarin Corporation ple

(collectively, “Amarin”) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Ine. (“Teva”) (collectively, “the

Parties”) pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), to seal confidential information from certain

portions of the transcript of the July 28, 2025 hearing before Hon, Tonianne J, Bongiovanni,

U.S.M.J. (see ECF No. 216 in C.A. No, 21-10309) (which are identified with particularity in the

index attached to the Declaration of Alexander L. Callo, counsel for Amarin, submitted with the

motion to seal and the Declaration of Liza M. Walsh, counsel for Teva) [hereinafter, the

“Confidential Materials”}; and the Court having considered Amarin’s written submissions,

including the Declaration of Alexander L. Callo, counsel for Amarin and the Declaration of Liza

M. Walsh, counse! for Teva; and the Court having determined that these actions involve

allegations regarding the disclosure of confidential and proprietary information; and for other

and good cause having been shown; the Court makes the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT

l. The information that the Parties seeks to seal has been designated as “HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL” under the stipulated Confidentiality Order entered by this Court (see ECF

No. 188 in C.A. No. 2171-10309) CO”).

2, By designating the material as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” under the CO, the

Parties have represented that the Confidential Materials disclose highly sensitive “confidential

and proprietary information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets or other confidential

research, development, or commercial information as those terms are used in Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(c)(1)(G)” as well as the details of a confidential settlement agreement protected by a

confidentiality clause executed by Teva and the Defendants in connection with a prior lawsuit

(the “Settlement Agreement’).

3, This is a complex antitrust action. As such, a significant portion of the materials

exchanged in discovery, and subsequently fited with the Court in connection with pretrial

proceedings, contain proprietary and confidential trade secret, research, development, and/or

commercial information of the parties. The material identified herein contains information

designated by the Parties as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and includes its highly sensitive

confidential commercial information, including details of the confidential Settlement Agreement

protected by a confidentiality clause. See id,

4. By designating this information “HIGHLY CONF IDENTIAL,” it is apparent that

the Parties have indicated that the public disclosure of this information would be detrimental to

their business. Due fo the nature of the materials herein, there is no less restrictive alternative to

sealing the Confidential Materials.

5. ‘The Parties’ request is narrowly tailored to only the information designated as

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” contained in the above materials,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6. Upon consideration of the papers submitted in support of the motion, and the

information that the Parties have designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” the Court

concludes that the Parties have met their burden of proving, under Local Civil Rule 5.3 and

applicable case law, that the information described above should be sealed. See Pansy v.

Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 Gd Cir. 1994). 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 vy. BIC Corp., 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)), This Court has the power to seal where confidential information

may be disclosed to the public. Fed. R. Civ, P. 26(c)(1}(G) allows the court to protect materials

containing “trade secret{s] or other confidential yeseatch, development, or commercial

information{,]? upon motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant’s competitive standing in

the marketplace. See Zenith Radio Corp. y. Matsushita Elee. Indus, Co., 529 F, Supp. 866, 889-

91 (E.D. Pa. 1981), Additionally, this District has held that the inclusion of confidential

information in documents warrants the sealing of such documents. This Court has permitted the

sealing of confidential settlement information, including confidential settlement communications

and negotiations. See, e.g., Horizon Pharma, Ine. v. Lupin Lid., No. 11-2317, 2017 WL 5068547,

at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2017) (permitting sealing of confidential settlement information pursuant to

F.R.E. 408); Morgan v, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 14-4388, 2015 WL 3882748, at *2 (D.N.J.

June 23, 2015) (granting motion to seal confidential settlement negotiations and confidential

settlement amounts); Galluccio v. Pride Indus., Inc., No. 15-03423, 2020 WL 34969 14, at *3

(D.N.J. June 29, 2020) (permitting sealing of settlement offer).

7. 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 materiais 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. Specifically, the Court concludes that: (a) the materials contain

confidential information concerning the Parties’ businesses, including details of the confidential

Settlement Agreement protected by a confidentiality clause; (b) the Parties have a legitimate

interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information to protect its disclosure to potential

competitors who could use the information contained therein to develop and market competing

products; (c) public disclosure of the confidential information would result in clearly defined and

serious injury, including the use of confidential information by competitors to the Parties’

financial detriment; and (d) no less restrictive alternative to sealing the subject information is

available.

8, The foregoing conclusions are supported by relevant case law holding that the

right of public access to the full court transcript is not absolute, and may be overcome by a

showing such as made here, in the discretion of the trial court, See Nixon v. Warner Comune ‘ns,

Inc., 435 U.S, 589, 603 (1978). The Court, upon such a proper showing, may in its discretion

prevent confidential information from being “transmuted into materials presumptively subject to

public access.” Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 n.8 Qd Cir, 2004).

IT IS on this 21st day of October, 2025:

ORDERED that based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that

Amarin and Teva’s joint Motion to Seal is hereby GRANTED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall permit the Confidential

Materials to be sealed permanently and the Clerk shall take such other steps as may be

reasonably required to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Materials; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall provide a copy of this Order to the

Transcriber within 7 days of the date of this Order.

a e (fin fo

HON, TONIANNE J. B IOVANNA, U.S.M.J.

{Docket Entry No, 217 in Civil Action No, 21-10309 is terminated]

[Docket Entry No, 202 in Civil Action No. 21-12061 is terminated. ]

[Docket Entry No. 162 in Civil Action No. 21-12747 is terminated.

[Docket Entry No. 100 in Civil Action No. 23-1016 is terminated. ]

[Docket Entry No. 110 in Civil Action No. 24-4341 is terminated.]

[Docket Entry No. 158 in Civil Action No. 24-7041 is terminated.]