Paper 34
`
`Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: 14 March 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR-2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`On March 11, 2013, the patent owner (Cuozzo) filed a Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper 33). Petitioner has not yet responded.
`
`There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a quasi-
`judicial administrative proceeding open to the public, especially in an inter partes
`review which determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and
`
`
`
`Trial@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: 14 March 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. ET AL.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR-2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`On March 11, 2013, the patent owner (Cuozzo) filed a Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper 33). Petitioner has not yet responded.
`
`There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a quasi-
`judicial administrative proceeding open to the public, especially in an inter partes
`review which determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`therefore affects the rights of the public. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default
`rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review are open and available for
`access by the public; and a party may file a concurrent motion to seal and the
`information at issue is sealed pending the outcome of the motion. Similarly,
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 provides:
`
`The record of a proceeding, including documents and things,
`shall be made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered. A
`party intending a document or thing to be sealed shall file a motion to
`seal concurrent with the filing of the document or thing to be sealed.
`The document or thing shall be provisionally sealed on receipt of the
`motion and remain so pending the outcome of the decision on the
`motion.
`
`
`It is, however, only “confidential information” that is protected from
`disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7)(“The Director shall prescribe regulations -- . . .
`providing for protective orders governing the exchange and submission of
`confidential information”). In that regard, note the Office Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012), which provides:
`The rules aim to strike a balance between the public’s interest in
`maintaining a complete and understandable file history and the
`parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive information.
`
`
`* * *
`
`
`Confidential Information: The rules identify confidential information
`in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
`§ 42.54.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54. Cuozzo as the moving party has the burden of proof in showing
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`The entirety of Cuozzo’s motion is reproduced below:
`
`The Patent Owner requests permission to seal the documents
`contained in Exhibit 3000 of the Patent Owner’s Response and
`Exhibit 4000 of the Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend under the
`default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide (§ 42.54(a)).
`
`A motion to seal is required to include a proposed protective order and a
`
`certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to
`confer with the opposing party in an effort to come to an agreement as to the scope
`of the proposed protective order for this inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`Cuozzo’s motion contains no such order or certification.
`
`Exhibit 3000 and Exhibit 4000 appear to be identical. Each of them is a
`71-page compilation of Exhibits A through P of a declaration of inventor Giuseppe
`A. Cuozzo filed in support of patent owner’s effort to antedate prior art references.
`
`To grant the motion to seal, we need to know why the information sought to
`be placed under seal constitutes confidential information. Cuozzo has not
`presented a sufficient explanation as to why any of the 71 pages of information
`sought to be sealed is confidential information and why there is good cause for
`granting the motion. Cuozzo has not on this record even represented that the
`information sought to be sealed constitutes confidential information. Cuozzo has
`not met its burden of proof.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`We recognize a denial of Cuozzo’s motion would immediately unseal the
`
`material Cuozzo desires to be placed under seal and the effect would be
`irreversible. Therefore, rather than denying the motion at this time, we will
`provide Cuozzo one week to (1) supplement the Motion to Seal, (2) revise the
`Motion to Seal to limit it to fewer items, (3) withdraw the Motion to Seal and
`request to expunge Exhibits 3000 and 4000, or (4) withdraw the Motion to Seal,
`and request to expunge Exhibits 3000 and 4000 and replace them with redacted
`versions that leave out the confidential information.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Exhibit 3000 and Exhibit 4000 will be made available to
`
`the public after 5 PM Eastern on Thursday, March 21, 2013, unless on or prior to
`that time, Cuozzo (1) files a Supplemental Motion to Seal, (2) files a Revised
`Motion to Seal which seeks to place fewer items under seal, (3) withdraws the
`Motion to Seal and requests to expunge Exhibits 3000 and 4000, indicating that
`Cuozzo will no longer rely on those exhibits, or (4) withdraws the Motion to Seal
`and requests to expunge Exhibits 3000 and 4000 and to replace them with redacted
`versions that leave out the confidential information;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any supplement or revision that Cuozzo
`
`chooses to file should include a detailed discussion that:
`
`Specifies precisely, for each of Exhibits A through P, which
`portions of the information in that exhibit constitute confidential
`information under the Office Trial Practice Guide quoted above, and
`why; and
`
`Explains why good cause exists to place such confidential
`
`information under seal;
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the explanation of good cause shall:
`
`Include a certification that none of the alleged confidential
`information in Exhibits A through P has been made publically
`available.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Cuozzo include, in any supplemental or
`
`revised Motion to Seal, a certification that it has in good faith conferred or
`attempted to confer with the opposing party in an effort to come to agreement as to
`the scope of the proposed protective order for this inter partes review to comply
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.54;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Cuozzo submit a proposed protective order
`
`(e.g., a copy of the default protective order set forth in the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide) with any supplemental or revised motion to seal in compliance
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Garmin has until March 28, 2013, to file an
`
`opposition to Cuozzo’s Motion to Seal and any supplemental or revised Motion to
`Seal.
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2012-00001
`Patent 6,778,074
`
`For PETITIONER
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Scott Brown
`HOVEY WILLIAMS LLP
`jcb@hoveywilliams.com
`jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelley Kasha
`Kasha Law LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelley.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
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
