`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: March 6, 2019
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`CASCADES CANADA ULC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ESSITY PROFESSIONAL HYGIENE NORTH AMERICA LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-02198
`Patent 8,273,443 B2
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, KRISTINA M. KALAN, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal and Entering Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`1 After institution, Patent Owner changed its name from SCA Tissue North
`America, LLC, the originally named Patent Owner, to Essity Professional
`Hygiene North America LLC. Paper 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02198
`Patent 8,273,443 B2
`
`Patent Owner has moved to seal portions of the deposition transcript
`of Mr. Paul Carlson. Paper 28 (“Mot.”). Patent Owner contends its motion
`to seal should be granted because portions of the deposition transcript of
`Mr. Carlson contain “valuable, proprietary, and non-public information
`about Patent Owner’s technical personnel, operations, sales, and
`machinery.” Mot. 4–5. Patent Owner filed redacted and unredacted
`versions of Mr. Carlson’s deposition testimony as Exhibit 1041, and
`represents that Petitioner does not oppose its motion to seal. Id. at 3;
`Ex. 1041.
`
`The Motion includes a proposed Protective Order that is based on the
`Board’s default protective order, but modified to omit the parties and experts
`employed by a party from the list of individuals who may have access to
`confidential information. Mot. 4–7; Ex. 2013 (proposed protective order);
`Ex. 2014 (redlined protective order showing proposed changes from the
`Board’s default protective order).
`
`The Board’s 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.” See Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). In this
`case, the parties represent that they do not cite or rely on any confidential
`information in their briefs (Mot. 3), nor does the Final Written Decision rely
`on any of the confidential information identified by Patent Owner. Paper 40.
`Thus, the parties’ arguments and the Board’s analysis may be understood on
`the current record, without the need to make public any of the materials
`Patent Owner seeks to be maintained under seal. Accordingly, we grant
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02198
`Patent 8,273,443 B2
`Patent Owner’s motion to seal the deposition transcript of Mr. Carlson, and
`we enter the proposed Protective Order.
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to seal (Paper 28) is granted;
`and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed Protective Order (Ex. 2013)
`
`is entered.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02198
`Patent 8,273,443 B2
`PETITIONER:
`Rudolph A. Telscher, Jr.
`Daisy Manning
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`PTAB-RTelscher@huschblackwell.com
`PTAB-DManning@huschblackwell.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David A. Mancino
`Kevin P. Flynn
`William F. Smith
`BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
`dmancino@bakerlaw.com
`kflynn@bakerlaw.com
`wsmith@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
