`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 55
`Date: June 4, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ERICSSON INC. and TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Patent 8,774,309 B2)
`IPR2017-01197 (Patent 7,251,768 B2)
`IPR2017-01200 (Patent 8,718,185 B2)
`IPR2017-01213 (Patent 8,588,317 B2)
`IPR2017-01214 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`IPR2017-01219 (Patent RE45,230 E)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 These cases have not been joined or consolidated. Rather, this Order
`governs each case based on common issues. The parties shall not employ
`this heading style.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Patent 8,774,309 B2)
`IPR2017-01197 (Patent 7,251,768 B2)
`IPR2017-01200 (Patent 8,718,185 B2)
`IPR2017-01213 (Patent 8,588,317 B2)
`IPR2017-01214 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`IPR2017-01219 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Regents of the University of Minnesota (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Revised Motion to Seal (see, e.g., IPR2017-01186, Paper 49 (“Revised
`Motion” or “Mot.”)) portions of Exhibits 2012–2015 and portions of its
`Preliminary Responses in each of the captioned cases. For the following
`reasons, the Revised Motion in each case is granted.
`II. ANALYSIS
`There is a strong public policy that favors making information filed in
`an inter partes review open to the public. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo
`Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 34 at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013).
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`That standard includes showing that the information addressed in the motion
`to seal is confidential. Garmin, Paper 34 at 2–3. Further, the parties are
`encouraged to redact confidential information, where possible, rather than
`seeking to seal entire documents. Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 22
`(Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
`documents/tpgnov.pdf?MURL (“TPG”).
`Patent Owner previously filed motions to seal the entirety of Exhibits
`2012–2015 and portions of its Preliminary Responses. See, e.g., IPR2017-
`01186, Paper 31. We denied that motion without prejudice because
`1) Patent Owner did not explain sufficiently why the information in Exhibits
`2012–2015 and its Preliminary Responses is confidential; and 2) certain
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Patent 8,774,309 B2)
`IPR2017-01197 (Patent 7,251,768 B2)
`IPR2017-01200 (Patent 8,718,185 B2)
`IPR2017-01213 (Patent 8,588,317 B2)
`IPR2017-01214 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`IPR2017-01219 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`
`information in Exhibits 2012–2015 appeared to have been disclosed
`publicly. See, e.g., IPR2017-01186, Paper 44, 3–4.
`In the Revised Motion, Patent Owner explains that portions of
`Exhibits 2012–2015 and its Preliminary Responses include “confidential,
`commercially-sensitive acquisition, purchase, and/or sales agreements
`between Petitioner Ericsson Inc. and third-party wireless carriers.” Mot. 4–
`5. With the Revised Motion, Patent Owner filed public versions of Exhibits
`2012–2015 and revised public versions of its Preliminary Responses (see,
`e.g., IPR2017-01186, Paper 50) that redact only the confidential information
`therein. After considering the Revised Motion, we determine that Patent
`Owner shows sufficiently that the identified information in Exhibits 2012–
`2015 and its Preliminary Responses should be sealed pursuant to the
`Protective Order previously entered in these cases.
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Revised Motion in each of the
`captioned cases is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of Exhibits
`2012–2015 and the Preliminary Responses (IPR2017-01186, Paper 30;
`IPR2017-01197, Paper 29; IPR2017-01200, Paper 31; IPR2017-01213,
`Paper 29; IPR2017-01214, Paper 29; IPR2017-01219, Paper 31) are sealed;
`and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Patent 8,774,309 B2)
`IPR2017-01197 (Patent 7,251,768 B2)
`IPR2017-01200 (Patent 8,718,185 B2)
`IPR2017-01213 (Patent 8,588,317 B2)
`IPR2017-01214 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`IPR2017-01219 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the original public versions of the
`Preliminary Responses (IPR2017-01186, Paper 29; IPR2017-01197, Paper
`28; IPR2017-01200, Paper 30; IPR2017-01213, Paper 28; IPR2017-01214,
`Paper 28; IPR2017-01219, Paper 29) are expunged.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Patent 8,774,309 B2)
`IPR2017-01197 (Patent 7,251,768 B2)
`IPR2017-01200 (Patent 8,718,185 B2)
`IPR2017-01213 (Patent 8,588,317 B2)
`IPR2017-01214 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`IPR2017-01219 (Patent RE45,230 E)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Andrew Lowes
`John Russell Emerson
`Greg Webb
`Clint Wilkins
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`andrew.lowes.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russ.emerson@haynesboone.com
`greg.webb.ipr@haynesboone.com
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Lawrence K. Kolodney
`Christopher Hoff
`Andrew B. Patrick
`Andrew Dommer
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`kolodney@fr.com
`hoff@fr.com
`patrick@fr.com
`dommer@fr.com
`
`5
`
`