Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADIDAS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADIDAS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`Petitioner Under Amour, Inc. moves to seal (1) Petitioner’s Response to
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Observation on Cross-Examination of Ms. Julie Davis
`
`(“Document 1”), (2) Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observation on Cross-Examination of Dr. Joseph Paradiso (“Document 2”), and
`
`(3) portions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(“Document 3”), as described below, 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. Petitioner
`
`has met and conferred with Patent Owner, who does not oppose this motion to file
`
`under seal.
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits public and confidential versions of Documents 1, 2, and 3
`
`concurrently with the filing of this motion. Specifically, Petitioner submits a
`
`confidential version of Document 1, which is designated “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL” by Petitioner, entirely under seal.
`
` Petitioner also submits
`
`confidential versions of Documents 2 and 3 under seal and redacted versions of
`
`Documents 2 and 3. Petitioner has served Patent Owner with a confidential
`
`version of Document 1 and both confidential and redacted versions of Documents
`
`2 and 3.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`Petitioner submits that Documents 1, 2, and 3 are properly sealed in order to
`
`
`
`protect Petitioner’s highly-confidential business information from disclosure to
`
`their competitors as well as the general public. The record of an inter partes
`
`review proceeding, including documents and things, is made available to the
`
`public, except as otherwise ordered. 37 C.F.R. § 2.14. But despite the default rule
`
`of public availability, the Board will seal confidential information for “good
`
`cause,” because it is necessary 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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a); 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). As laid out in the Office Trial Practice Guide, the Board
`
`treats confidential information “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.” Id. at 48760.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that good cause exists to seal Documents 1, 2, and
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Documents 1, 2, and 3 include competitively-sensitive business information
`
`of Petitioner. This highly-confidential business information includes non-public
`
`technical, financial, and marketing information concerning Petitioner. This highly-
`
`confidential business information further includes detailed information about
`
`Petitioner’s business strategy.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`Document 1 contains highly confidential information of Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`regarding financial performance, sales figures, marketing, user data, and business
`
`strategy, all of which are designated PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.
`
`
`
`Document 2 contains highly confidential information concerning Petitioner’s
`
`non-public technical information and discusses highly confidential information
`
`from a sealed deposition transcript (Ex. 2040) regarding non-public technical
`
`information.
`
`
`
`Document 3 contains highly confidential information of Petitioner’s
`
`regarding financial performance, sales figures, marketing, user data, and business
`
`strategy, all of which are designated PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`
`
`If this highly-confidential information were disclosed publicly or to either
`
`party’s employees, that information would likely cause competitive business harm.
`
`In other inter partes review proceedings, the Board has held that confidential
`
`information such as what Petitioner has submitted here should remain under seal.
`
`See, e.g., Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC v. Oil States Energy Svcs., LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00216, Paper 27, at 5 (PTAB Sept. 23, 2014) (holding that portions of exhibit that
`
`contained confidential financial information remain under seal where proposed
`
`redactions were reasonable and thrust of underlying argument or evidence was
`
`clearly discernable); Baby Trend, Inc. v. Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd.,
`
`IPR2015-00841, Paper 35, at 3 (PTAB November 17, 2015) (holding good cause
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`existed to seal market related information that was not otherwise public and did not
`
`inhibit the general public from understanding the underlying arguments and
`
`evidence being relied upon in the public versions of the filings). Here, Petitioner
`
`has redacted from its public filings only those portions of Documents 2 and 3 that
`
`reflects competitively sensitive information.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Brian E. Ferguson/
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Christopher T. Marando (Reg. No.67,898)
`W. Sutton Ansley (Reg. No. 67,828)
`Robert T. Vlasis (Pro Hac Vice)
`Zachary C. Garthe (Pro Hac Vice)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`christopher.marando@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`robert.vlasis@weil.com
`zachary.garthe@weil.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`grant this unopposed motion to seal.
`
`Dated: April 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 20, 2016, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54 was served via electronic mail, upon the following:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Wab P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Jonathan D. Olinger
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`jolinger@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/ c
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
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
