Trials @uspto.gov Paper No. 99
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 18, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS. INC.,
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS VELA, LLC,
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS NEPTUNE, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`____________
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`On Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Final Written Decision and Oral Hearing
`Transcript
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 18, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS. INC.,
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS VELA, LLC,
`SEADRILL GULF OPERATIONS NEPTUNE, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`____________
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`On Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Final Written Decision and Oral Hearing
`Transcript
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Final Written Decision (Paper 95),1 Patent Owner and
`Petitioner were ordered to consult with third parties Pacific Drilling SA
`(“Pacific”) and Stena Drilling Ltd. (“Stena”) and provide proposed redacted
`copies of the Final Written Decision and the February 13, 2017 Oral Hearing
`Transcript (Paper 94 “Transcript”).2 On April 18, 2017, Patent Owner filed
`a Motion to Seal Oral Hearing Transcript and Final Written Decision
`identifying Patent Owner’s and Pacific’s proposed redactions. Paper 101
`(“Motion”). Additionally, Pacific filed a Response in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Seal. Ex. 2220 (“Response”). Patent Owner filed
`redacted versions of the Final Written Decision (Paper 99) and the
`Transcript (Paper 100) containing all proposed redactions. Petitioner has not
`filed an opposition to the Motion, and based on Patent Owner’s assertion
`that Petitioner provided no additional proposed redactions, does not appear
`to oppose the Motion. Motion 2.
`The record for an inter partes review shall be made available to the
`public, except as otherwise ordered, and a document filed with a motion to
`seal shall be treated as sealed until the motion is decided. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. The standard for granting a motion to seal is
`“good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. There is a strong public policy that favors
`making information filed in inter partes review proceedings open to the
`
`
`1 The citations in this Order are directed to papers and exhibits in IPR2015-
`01929. The other proceedings will have similar papers and exhibits.
`2 Pacific is a party in related litigation, Transocean Offshore Deepwater
`Drilling, Inc. v. Pacific Drilling SA, Civil Action No. 4:13-cv-1088 (S.D.
`Tex). Stena is a party in prior related litigation, Transocean Offshore
`Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Stena Drilling Ltd., Civil Action No. 4:08-cv-
`03287 (S.D. Tex.).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`
`
`public. See Garmin International v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Case
`IPR2012-00001 (PTAB March 14, 2013) (Paper 34) (discussing the
`standards of the Board applied to motions to seal). The moving party bears
`the burden of showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(c). That includes showing that the information is truly confidential,
`and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having
`an open record. See Garmin at 3.
`Regarding the Final Written Decision, Patent Owner’s proffered
`redactions are labeled TO-01 (Paper 99, 60) and TO-02 (id.). Motion 2.
`Patent Owner asserts that each of its proposed redactions “pertains to
`confidential terms from a settlement agreement between Patent Owner and
`Stena. The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality provision and the
`redacted terms are of a confidential and sensitive nature.” Motion 2.
`Pacific’s proffered redaction is labeled PD-01 (Paper 99, 47). Motion 2.
`Pacific asserts that its redaction pertains to “a confidential contract term and
`pricing information from a Pacific drilling services contract. Public
`disclosure of this information would place Pacific at a disadvantage in future
`marketing or contracting efforts. This type of financial and operational
`information is confidential and of a sensitive business nature.” Response 2.
`Upon review of the unredacted version of the Final Written Decision,
`we are persuaded that the proposed redacted portions designated as TO-01
`and TO-02 are narrowly tailored to redact only confidential information.
`We are not persuaded, however, that good cause exists to redact the portion
`of the Final Written Decision designated as PD-01. The proposed redacted
`portion PD-01 is a citation to page 51 of Exhibit 2102. Paper 95, 47.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`
`Exhibit 2102 previously was placed under seal. See id. at 10, 66 (granting
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Exhibit 2102). A redacted version of Exhibit
`2102 has been entered in the record. Ex. 2102 (redacted version). Page 51
`of the redacted version of Exhibit 2102 was not redacted. See id. Thus page
`51 of Exhibit 2102 is publically accessible. We do not find good cause to
`redact a citation to a publically accessible document. Although our Final
`Written Decision stated that if we were to deny or deny in part a motion,
`“the parties will be given at least one opportunity to refile” (id. at 14), we do
`not provide an opportunity to refile in this particular instance because the
`information has been made public and this cannot be undone.
`Regarding the Transcript, Patent Owner’s proffered redactions are
`labeled TO-03 (Paper 100 120, ll. 18–21), TO-04 (id. at 123, ll. 10–13), TO-
`05 (id. at 123, l. 20, and TO-06 (id. at 123, ll. 21–22). Motion 2. Patent
`Owner asserts that each of its proposed redactions to the Transcript also
`pertain to the aforementioned confidential terms from a settlement
`agreement between Patent Owner and Stena. Motion 2. Pacific’s proffered
`redactions are labeled PD-02 (Paper 100 37, l. 15), PD-03 (id. at 37, ll. 17–
`18), PD-04 (id. at 48, ll. 15–16, 16–17), and PD-05 (id. at 86, ll. 13–16).
`Motion 2. Pacific asserts that its proposed redactions to the Transcript
`pertain to confidential financial, pricing, and operational information of a
`sensitive business nature. Pacific asserts that “[p]ublic disclosure of this
`information would place Pacific at a disadvantage in future marketing or
`contracting efforts, both with respect to its competitors, its customers, and
`shipyards.” Response 2–3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`
`
`Upon review of the unredacted version of the Transcript, we are
`persuaded that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to redact only
`confidential information. We are persuaded good cause exists to have the
`Transcript remain under seal with the publically accessible version
`containing the proposed redactions designated as TO-03, TO-04, TO-05,
`TO-06, PD-02, PD-03, PD-04, and PD-05.
`After consideration of the record before us, we grant-in-part Patent
`Owner’s Motion.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 101) is granted-in-
`
`part;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 101) to
`redact portions designated as TO-01 and TO-02 of the Decision (Paper 95) is
`granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 101) to
`redact the portion designated as PD-01 of the Decision (Paper 95) is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 101) to
`redact the Transcript (Paper 94) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the redacted version of the Transcript
`(Paper 99) will be the publically available version; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, concurrent with this Order, a public
`redacted version of the Final Written Decision will be entered.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01929 (Patent 6,047,781)
`IPR2015-01989 (Patent 6,085,851)
`IPR2015-01990 (Patent 6,068,069)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew Reeves
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`mreeves@lockelord.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark Garrett
`W. Andrew Liddell
`Charles Walker
`Mark Eberhard
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`andrew.liddell@nortonrosefulbright.com
`charles.walker@nortonrosefulbright.com
`mark.eberhard@nortonrosefulbright.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
