throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket