`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 75
`
` Entered: April 17, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIKE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00620 (Patent D723,783 S)
`Case IPR2017-00621 (Patent D723,781 S)1
`____________
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Re-designating Paper 51 for Public Availability without Redaction
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues common to both cases, therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case. The parties are authorized to use this
`style heading when filing an identical paper in both proceedings, provided
`that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the word-for-word
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00620 (Patent D723,783 S)
`IPR2017-00621 (Patent D723,781 S)
`
`
`
`
`On February 1, 2018, in each proceeding, Petitioner filed a Reply.
`Paper 512. Petitioner filed the Reply publicly without any confidential
`designation. About two months later, on March 29, 2018, by email to the
`Board, Petitioner requested re-designation of the Reply as “Board and
`Parties Only” but did not file a redacted, public version of the document.
`See Ex. 3002 (email communication). The Board complied with Petitioner’s
`request and re-designated Paper 51 that same day.
`On April 6, 2018, we issued an Order instructing Petitioner to file a
`motion to seal Paper 51 as well as a redacted, public version in each
`proceeding. Paper 71, 4; Paper 70, 4.3 On April 10, 2018, in both
`proceedings, Petitioner filed a paper styled as a Response to the Board’s
`Order. Paper 73, Paper 72 (“Response”). The Response pertains to our
`instructions for filing a motion to seal Paper 51. See generally Response.
`This Order addresses that Response. Petitioner indicates that, in view
`of certain circumstances set forth in the Response, “it is no longer necessary
`for Petitioner to file a motion to seal or to file a redacted version of
`Paper 51.” Response, 1. Specifically, Petitioner avers that the parties
`“reached a compromise on March 30, 2018,” which included “restoring
`Paper 51 to ‘public’ status.” Id.
`On April 12, 2018, a combined final hearing was conducted in these
`proceedings. A transcript of that hearing shall be entered in due course.
`During the final hearing, as a preliminary matter, we asked counsel for each
`party whether Paper 51 should be re-designated in the Board’s filing system
`
`2 Petitioner’s Reply is designated as Paper 51 in both proceedings.
`3 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer sequentially to paper numbers
`corresponding to documents filed in IPR2017-00620 and IPR2017-00621.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00620 (Patent D723,783 S)
`IPR2017-00621 (Patent D723,781 S)
`
`
`
`to permit public access. Counsel for both parties confirmed that Paper 51
`should be made publicly available, without redaction, in the record of each
`proceeding.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Paper 51 is re-designated and made available for
`public access, without redaction, in the record of each proceeding.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Samuel K. Lu
`Michael R. Fleming
`Talin Gordnia
`Morgan Chu
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`slu@irell.com
`mfleming@irell.com
`tgordnia@irell.com
`mchu@irell.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher J. Renk
`Erik S. Maurer
`Audra Eidem Heinze
`Kurt Reister
`Michael J. Harris
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
`crenk@bannerwitcoff.com
`emaurer@bannerwitcoff.com
`aheinze@bannerwitcoff.com
`kriester@bannerwitcoff.com
`mharris@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`3
`
`