UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS US LLC; AND
`NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2017-01518
`U.S. Patent No. 9,235,462
`____________
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS US LLC; AND
`NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2017-01518
`U.S. Patent No. 9,235,462
`____________
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O.
`Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`I.
`PROTECTIVE ORDER............................................................................... 1
`II.
`III. BASIS FOR SEALING CERTAIN EXHIBITS........................................... 1
`IV. BASIS FOR REDACTING THE REPLY.................................................... 4
`V.
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 4
`
`i
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, Petitioners Nokia Solutions and Networks US
`
`LLC and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy (“NSN”) hereby move to seal Exhibits
`
`NSN462-1053, NSN462-1054,
`
`and NSN462-1055 (“the Proposed Sealed
`
`Documents”) and publicly file a redacted version of its Reply in support of the
`
`Motion for Joinder (“Redacted Reply”). The Proposed Sealed Documents and
`
`Redacted Reply were filed contemporaneously with this Motion.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`II.
`NSN462-1056 is the protective order that has been entered in the co-pending
`
`district court litigation, and pursuant to which the above identified documents were
`
`marked with confidential designations as described in additional detail below.
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile US Inc. et al., 2:16-cv-0052, Dkt. No. 93 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 30, 2016). Petitioner believes that a protective order of similar terms will
`
`be negotiated and filed in this case should it be instituted.
`
`III. BASIS FOR SEALING CERTAIN EXHIBITS
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “[t]he rules aim to strike
`
`a balance between the public’s
`
`interest
`
`in maintaining a complete and
`
`understandable file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive
`
`information.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, those “rules
`
`identify confidential information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or other
`1
`
`
`
`confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Id. (citing 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54); see also Illumina v. Columbia University, IPR2013-00011, Paper
`
`66, Aug. 12, 2013 Dec. (granting a motion to seal “technical and business
`
`information” and “product development information”).
`
`The Proposed Sealed Documents contain information that is subject to the
`
`Protective Order (NSN462-1056) entered in the accompanying district court
`
`litigation.
`
`(1) NSN462-1053 (Highlighted Excerpts from Expert Report of Mark
`
`Lanning Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent Number 9,235,462).
`
`Petitioner asserted in the co-pending district court litigation that this
`
`document contains Trade Secret Information and Confidential Business
`
`Information, and should be classified as CONFIDENTIAL. This is
`
`because the document
`
`is marked “Restricted-Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`Information” and, as such, is Protected Material under the protective order
`
`in the related litigation. The Board can reach a decision with respect to
`
`obviousness and the appropriateness of joinder without
`
`the need to
`
`disclose this information to the public.
`
`(2) NSN462-1054 (Highlighted Excerpts from Rebuttal Expert Report and
`
`Declaration of Ray Nettleton, Ph.D. Regarding the Validity of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,069,365, 8,719,617, 8,867,339, and 9,235,462). Patent Owner
`
`2
`
`
`
`asserted in the co-pending district court litigation that this document
`
`contains Trade Secret Information and Confidential Business Information,
`
`and should be classified as CONFIDENTIAL. This is because the
`
`document is marked RESTRICTED—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and,
`
`as such, is Protected Material under the protective order in the related
`
`litigation. The Board can reach a decision with respect to obviousness and
`
`the appropriateness of joinder without the need to disclose this information
`
`to the public.
`
`(3) NSN462-1055 (Highlighted Presentation on SGW PGW Blacklisting).
`
`This document contains an internal presentation about NSN’s product.
`
`This is Trade Secret Information and Confidential Business Information,
`
`and should be classified as CONFIDENTIAL. This is because the
`
`document is marked RESTRICTED - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY and, as such, is Protected Material under the protective order in the
`
`related litigation. The Board can reach a decision with respect
`
`to
`
`obviousness and the appropriateness of joinder without
`
`the need to
`
`disclose this information to the public.
`
`The aforementioned Proposed Sealed Documents provide evidence that (1)
`
`joinder will not impact the procedural schedule in Case IPR2017-00695; and (2) the
`
`Patent Owner was on notice of the later-accused functionality for five months prior
`
`3
`
`
`
`to the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bar date. Thus, the Proposed Sealed Documents establish
`
`that it is proper to join Case IPR2017-01518, which primarily challenges dependent
`
`Claim 16 of the ’462 Patent, with Case IPR2017-00695, which challenges claims
`
`14, 15, and 17-24 of the ’462 Patent.
`
`IV. BASIS FOR FILING THE REDACTED REPLY
`The contemporaneously-filed Reply in support of Petitioners’ Motion for
`
`Joinder references information in the Proposed Sealed Documents. In order to
`
`preserve confidentiality, the Redacted Reply contains minimal redactions to sections
`
`that reference the Proposed Sealed Documents. NSN maintains its designations of
`
`each Exhibit as a whole as confidential, and reserves all rights to continue to assert
`
`such confidentiality.
`
`CONCLUSION
`V.
`For the foregoing reasons, the Proposed Sealed Documents described herein
`
`should receive a “CONFIDENTIAL” designation and be kept under seal, and the
`
`Redacted Reply should be filed to preserve confidentiality.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/S. Benjamin Pleune/
`
`S. Benjamin Pleune
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`Petitioners, through the undersigned, hereby certify that they have in good
`
`faith attempted to confer with Patent Owner in an effort to resolve all disputes
`
`relative to sealing the aforementioned documents.
`
`Dated: August 10, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/S. Benjamin Pleune/
`S. Benjamin Pleune, Reg. No. 54,762
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Motion to Seal”
`
`and its respective exhibits were served in their entirety on August 10, 2017 pursuant
`
`to agreement via email to counsel for Huawei at:
`
`FishServiceList-Huawei/T-MobileEDTX@fr.com
`David Hoffman
`hoffman@fr.com
`W. Karl Renner
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`Roberto Devoto
`devoto@fr.com
`Craig Deutsch
`deutsch@fr.com
`Richard Sterba
`sterba@fr.com
`Ricardo Bonilla
`rbonilla@fr.com
`Jeremy Monaldo jjm@fr.com
`David Conrad
`conrad@fr.com
`
`/S. Benjamin Pleune/
`S. Benjamin Pleune, Reg. No. 54,762
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`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
