`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Under Armour Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`adidas AG,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`Patent Owner adidas AG (“Patent Owner”) hereby moves to seal its
`
`Response in Opposition to Under Armour’s Motion to Exclude submitted
`
`concurrently with this motion. Patent Owner has concurrently filed a redacted
`
`version of its Response in Opposition to Under Armour’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`Patent Owner has served Petitioner with both confidential and redacted versions of
`
`the above identified document.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opposition includes information that Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner have identified as competitively-sensitive business information. Similar
`
`materials have been made available to the opposing party only under similar
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”
`
`conditions in the related district court litigation.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner assert that if this highly-confidential
`
`information were disclosed publicly, or to the opposing side’s employees, that
`
`information likely would cause competitive business harm. In other inter parties
`
`review proceedings, the Board has held that confidential information such as that
`
`submitted here should remain under seal. See, e.g., Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`
`Inc. v. Oil States Energy Svcs., LLC, IPR2014-00216, Paper 27, at 5 (PTAB Sept.
`
`23, 2014). In Greene’s Energy Group, the Board held that portions of an exhibit
`
`containing confidential financial information should remain under seal where the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`proposed redactions were reasonable and the thrust of the underlying argument or
`
`evidence was clearly discernable from the redacted versions. Greene’s Energy
`
`Grp., IPR2014-00216, Paper 27, at 5. Here, Patent Owner has redacted from the
`
`public filings only those portions of the documents that reflect competitively
`
`sensitive information. Patent Owner submits that the thrust of its underlying
`
`arguments and evidence remain clearly discernable from the redacted, public
`
`versions of its filings. Patent Owner respectfully submits that good cause exists to
`
`seal Patent Owner’s Response in Opposition to Under Armour’s Motion to
`
`Exclude.
`
`Patent Owner submits this document for seal under the Protective Order
`
`already in place. The Protective Order was submitted by Petitioner and agreed
`
`upon by both parties in Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal and For Entry of a
`
`Protective Order Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, filed by Petitioner on February 16,
`
`2016. Paper 25. Patent Owner has met and conferred with Petitioner Under
`
`Armour, Inc. who does not oppose this motion to file under seal.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant this unopposed motion to seal.
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of PATENT OWNER
`
`ADIDAS AG’S MOTION TO SEAL was served via email on the date below,
`
`Anish R. Desai
`Christopher T. Marando
`W. Sutton Ansley
`Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`upon the following:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
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
