`
`
`
`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 Reply in
`
`Support of its Motion to Exclude Evidence (“Patent Owner’s Reply”) submitted
`
`concurrently with this motion. Patent Owner has concurrently filed a redacted
`
`version of Patent Owner’s Reply. Patent Owner has served Petitioner with both
`
`confidential and redacted versions of Patent Owner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply includes information that Petitioner has 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.
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts that if this highly-confidential information were disclosed
`
`publicly or to the Patent Owner’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 proposed redactions were
`
`reasonable and the thrust of the underlying argument or evidence was clearly
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00698
`Patent No. 8,092,345
`Patent Owner Motion to Seal
`
`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 Reply.
`
`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. “(Petitioner”), who does not oppose this motion to file under seal.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant this unopposed motion to seal.
`
`
`Dated: April 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`Reg. No. 39,389
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`adidas AG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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 26, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4