`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 36
`
`
`
` Entered: March 29, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PRONG, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YEOSHUA SORIAS,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01317
`Patent 8,712,486 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GLENN J. PERRY, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01317
`Patent 8,712,486 B2
`
`
`On March 28, 2016, Petitioner filed “Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54. Paper 33, “Mot.”. For the
`following reasons, the motion is granted.
`
`In its Motion, Petitioner seeks to seal certain portions of the
`concurrently filed Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to Evidence (Paper 34).
`Specifically, Petitioner seeks to seal the names of the affiants in three
`affidavits that were submitted by Patent Owner as Exhibits 2080, 2081, and
`2090. Mot. 1. Petitioner states Patent Owner indicates the identities of the
`affiants constitutes confidential information (Id., citing Paper 29) and that
`the Board has already granted a motion filed by Patent Owner to seal
`unredacted versions of these affidavits (Id., citing Paper 32). Petitioner has
`also filed a redacted version of Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to
`Evidence. Paper 35.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel “certifies that based on a diligent investigation,
`the Confidential Document and requested redacted information has not been
`published or otherwise made public.” Mot. 2.
`
`Patent Owner did not file an opposition to Petitioner’s motion to seal.
`
`There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in an
`inter partes review 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 “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54(a). For this reason, except as otherwise ordered, the record of an
`inter partes review trial shall be made available to the public. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Motions to seal may be granted for good
`cause; until the motion is decided, documents filed with the motion shall be
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01317
`Patent 8,712,486 B2
`
`sealed provisionally. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54(a). The moving party
`bears the burden of showing that there is good cause to seal the record. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`Upon considering the content of the Petitioner’s Notice of Objections
`to Evidence, along with Patent Owner’s representations as to the
`confidentiality of the information (Paper 29), we determine that good cause
`exists for sealing the above identified document. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
`Motion to Seal Petitioner’s Notice of Objections to Evidence (Paper 34) is
`granted.
`
`The parties are reminded that confidential information that is subject to a
`protective order in these proceedings ordinarily will become public 45 days
`after final judgment in a trial. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). Additionally, the parties are reminded
`that there is an expectation that information will be made public where the
`existence of the information is identified in a final written decision following a
`trial. Id. Furthermore, a motion to expunge the information will not
`necessarily prevail over the public interest in maintaining a complete and
`understandable file history.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is granted.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01317
`Patent 8,712,486 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Caleb Pollack
`Zeev Pearl
`Daniel Melman
`PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER BARATZ LLP
`cpollack@pearlcohen.com
`zpearl@pearlcohen.com
`dmelman@pearlcohen.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Mitchell S. Feller
`Jason Wachter
`GOTTLIEB RACKMAN & REISMAN, P.C.
`msfeller@grr.com
`jwachter@grr.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
