`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: May 25, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`TICKETNETWORK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`CEATS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2018-00004
`Patent 8,229,774 B2
`______________
`
`Before MICHAEL W. KIM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding; Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004
`Patent 8,229,774 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 4, “Mot.”) portions of the
`Petition (Paper 2) and Exhibit 1007. Patent Owner has not opposed
`Petitioner’s Motion otherwise, by, for example, filing an opposition during
`the requisite time period. As such, we understand Petitioner’s Motion to be
`unopposed.
`“There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a
`quasi-judicial administrative proceeding open to the public.” Garmin Int’l v.
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012–00001, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14,
`2013) (Paper 34). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good
`cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. That standard includes showing that the
`information addressed in the motion to seal is truly confidential, and that
`such confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having the record
`open to the public. See Garmin, slip op. at 2–3.
`The moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief
`requested should be granted, and establishing that the information sought to
`be sealed is confidential information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`In reviewing Exhibit 1007 and redacted portions of the Petition that
`Petitioner seeks to seal, we observe, as Petitioner asserts, that the sealed
`information relates to the confidential license agreement between Petitioner
`and Patent Owner. Mot. 1. Petitioner represents that the license agreement
`contains a provision prohibiting either party from disclosing the contents of
`the license agreement. Id. Petitioner has filed redacted public versions,
`although we note that Exhibit 1007 is redacted almost in its entirety. We
`further note that some of the information relevant to standing concerning the
`terms of the license agreement are publicly available in other public exhibits
`filed by the parties, including Exhibit 1012.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004
`Patent 8,229,774 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner has filed a non-public version of its Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response under seal without any accompanying motion to seal.
`Paper 10. Patent Owner also filed a redacted public version of its
`Preliminary Response. Paper 11. Although Patent Owner has not submitted
`a motion to seal, we understand that the information in the Preliminary
`Response, filed under seal, is the same information related to the license
`agreement that Petitioner seeks to maintain under seal in its Motion. See
`Paper 10, 6–9.
`After having considered the arguments, we determine that Petitioner
`has established good cause for sealing the documents identified in the
`Motion, as well as the information in the Petition and Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response. We do not expressly cite Exhibit 1007, or the
`contents thereof, in our Decision, and instead rely on other publicly available
`Exhibits for information relevant to standing concerning the terms of the
`license agreement. Accordingly, we determine that burden on the public in
`maintaining this information under seal is minimal.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is granted as to the
`Petition and Exhibit 1007; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the non-public versions of the Petitioner
`and Patent Owner Preliminary Response are maintained under seal.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2018-00004
`Patent 8,229,774 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`P. Weston Musselman, Jr.
`Ricardo J. Bonilla
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`musselman@fr.com
`rbonilla@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Donald Daybell
`Johannes Hsu
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`d2dptabdocket@orrick.com
`ptabdocketj1h1@orrick.com
`
`Brian Billett
`bsbillett@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
