`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper 74
`Entered April 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`R2 SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00705; Case IPR2017-00706
`Case IPR2017-00707; Case IPR2017-00708
`Case IPR2017-01123; Case IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`____________
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.1
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 All paper numbers referenced herein are to IPR2017-00705.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`A conference call was held on April 30, 2018. The participants were
`
`respective counsel for the parties, and Judges Lee, Bisk, and Homere.
`
`Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 50 and 52,
`on the basis that they do not “present complete evidence.”2 We explained
`that in Petitioner’s slides, Petitioner may refer to select portions of the
`evidence. Patent Owner objected to Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 106, on
`the basis that “it appears to present evidence cited in the Petition in support
`of new arguments in support of Petitioner’s opposition to Patent Owner’s
`motions to amend.”3 We explained that the objection is based on mere
`speculation and thus inappropriate. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s objections
`to Petitioner’s demonstrative slides 50, 52, and 106 are denied.
`
`We asked Patent Owner why it filed confidential versions of the
`Patent Owner Response, and confidential versions of various exhibits,
`without having filed a Motion to Seal, as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`Counsel for Patent Owner provided no answer except that it was an
`oversight. We authorize Patent Owner to file a Motion to Seal, directed to
`all the documents it had filed under confidentiality thus far. In that regard,
`we brought to Patent Owner’s attention the following: Paper 27, IPR2017-
`01053; Papers 25, 41, 46, 47, and 49, IPR2014-00440. Any Motion to Seal
`must explain why balancing the public interest in knowing the reasoning
`
`
`2 This language is taken from Patent Owner’s email communication of April
`27, 2018, which we have entered as the next numbered exhibit in the 3000
`series. In IPR2017-00705, that is Exhibit 3002.
`3 This language is taken from Patent Owner’s email communication of April
`27, 2018, which we have entered as the next numbered exhibit in the 3000
`series. In IPR2017-00705, that is Exhibit 3002.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`behind the Board’s patentability determination with Patent Owner’s interest
`in keeping information confidential leads to good cause in sealing the
`information at issue.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the oral hearing to be held on May 1, 2018, will be
`open to the public;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential version of Patent
`Owner’s demonstrative slides (Paper 75), filed on April 27, 2018, will be
`expunged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall have until May 8,
`2018, to file a Motion to Seal, addressing the documents it has, thus far, filed
`with a confidentiality restriction;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner has until May 15, 2018, to file
`an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner has until May 20, 2018, to
`file a Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705; IPR2017-00706
`IPR2017-00707; IPR2017-00708
`IPR2017-01123; IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard Goldenberg
`Donald Steinberg
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`James Glass
`John McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com:
`
`
`4
`
`