throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 57
`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, ROBERT L. KINDER, and
`ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Decision on Petitioner’s Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed three
`motions to seal various exhibits and materials in the current proceeding
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54. See Papers 24, 31, and 41.
`
`A. First Motion to Seal
`Through the first Motion to Seal, Petitioner seeks to seal portions of
`Exhibits 2022, 2023, and 2031 and represents that Patent Owner, Promptu
`Systems Corp., does not oppose the motion. Paper 24, 2. Corresponding
`redacted exhibits have been filed as exhibits 1023, 1024, and 1025. Exhibit
`2022 is a “License and Development Agreement” between Comcast IP
`Holdings I, LLC and Comcast Corporation, and AgileTV Corporation.
`Paper 24, 2; see Ex. 2022. Exhibit 2023 is a “Marketing Trial Agreement
`for Voice Activated Television Control Service” between Comcast Cable
`Communications Management, LLC and AgileTV Corporation. Paper 24, 2;
`see Ex. 2023. Exhibit 2031 is a Comcast presentation titled “AgileTV
`Update,” and “describes the financial, marketing, and technical evaluations
`and projections for the trial of the AgileTV product as well as usability
`studies and metrics for voice control more generally.” Paper 24, 3; see
`Ex. 2031. Petitioner certifies that these exhibits contain confidential
`information that has not been published or otherwise made publicly
`available. Paper 24, 3. The alleged confidential information were not relied
`on or referred to in the Final Written Decision. Thus, protecting the alleged
`confidential material from public disclosure does not harm the public’s interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. Furthermore, the
`redactions appear to be limited in extent, and the motion is unopposed. We
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`determine that good cause exists to grant this motion to seal (Paper 24).
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`B. Second Motion to Seal
` Through the second Motion to Seal, Petitioner seeks to seal portions
`of Exhibit 1026, which “contains excerpts from the transcript of the
`deposition of Paul Cook.” Paper 31, 1. A corresponding redacted copy of
`Exhibit 1026 has been filed. See Exhibit 1035. Petitioner proposes to seal
`Exhibit portions of 1026 because those portions “disclose[] the amount of a
`proposed patent license agreement between the parties” or “the specific
`amount of consideration under the License and Development Agreement
`entered by the parties and additional confidential terms of that agreement.”
`Paper 31, 4–6. According to Petitioner, “[n]one of the specific dollar
`amounts disclosed in the exhibit are cited in Comcast’s reply brief or
`elsewhere in the parties’ briefing on the merits[, t]hus the public will have
`no interest in this specific confidential information with regard to the
`patentability of the challenged claims.” Paper 31, 4. In addition, Petitioner
`contends that the “information is confidential and its disclosure would harm
`Petitioner in similar negotiations involving patent or other licenses with
`other third parties.” Paper 31, 4–6.
`Patent Owner states that “[a]lthough Promptu indicated it does not
`oppose Comcast’s motion to seal, Promptu was ordered that it ‘still should
`inform the Board whether the information sought to be sealed by Petitioner
`constitutes confidential information or if the information is in the public
`domain.’ Paper 40 at 2.” Paper 45, 1. According to Patent Owner, “the
`information [Petitioner sought to seal] does not constitute confidential
`information and [that] the information is in the public domain.” Id. at 1, 9–
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`10.1 For example, Promptu’s amended complaint in its district court action
`and “several details regarding Comcast’s valuation of Promptu’s technology
`are already in the public domain.” Id. at 10. Promptu’s amended complaint
`states that “To further encourage Promptu to continue to disclose its
`proprietary voice recognition technology, Comcast represented it would
`invest $2 million of capital into Promptu.” Id. at 2 (citing to Promptu Sys.
`Corp. v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 2:16-CV- 6516-JS (E.D. Pa.), ECF No.
`30, ¶ 32). Patent Owner also points to Exhibits 2002 and 2003 in support of
`its contention. Exhibit 2002 is an AgileTV Corporation Executive Summary
`and Exhibit 2003 appears to be an AgileTV presentation titled “AgileTV
`Voice Navigation.” In addition, Patent Owner also argues that “the material
`is already publicly known, by virtue of the information having originated
`from the mouth of a non-party subject to no obligation of confidentiality.”
`Paper 45, 9–10. According to Patent Owner, Mr. Cook, “Promptu’s former
`CEO and a non-party, [] is no longer under any obligation of confidentiality”
`and did not designate his testimony as being confidential during his
`deposition. Id. at 6.
`In response, Petitioner contends that “Patent Owner does not identify
`any public source for the loan amount and instead cites its own allegations in
`the district court complaint that do not reveal the amount of the loan.” Paper
`49, 1. Petitioner also contends that Mr. Cook’s testimony “was provided in
`
`
`1 Patent Owner also argues that the information is not confidential because
`Petitioner did not properly designate Ex. 1026 under the protective order.
`Paper 45, 4–9. We do not find this argument persuasive because Patent
`Owner does not explain why a protective order, or compliance with a
`protective order, is a prerequisite to filing a motion to seal.
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`a conference room before attorneys bound by protective orders[, and is
`therefore] not a public statement.” Id.
`“The 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.” Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48760 (August 14, 2012). Here, the alleged
`confidential information is not relied on or referred to in the Final Written
`Decision. Thus, a complete and understandable file history does not depend on
`disclosure of any of the alleged confidential information at issue. Also, the scope
`of protection sought by Petitioner is limited, i.e., redacting “the amount of a
`proposed patent license agreement between the parties” and “the specific
`amount of consideration under the License and Development Agreement
`entered by the parties and additional confidential terms of that agreement.”
`Paper 31, 4–6. We determine that good cause exists to grant Petitioner’s
`Second Motion to Seal. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`C. Third Motion to Seal
` Through the Third Motion to Seal, Petitioner seeks to seal parts of
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 37), which “disclose[] the specific amount
`Comcast loaned to Patent Owner to conduct trials intended for Patent Owner
`to demonstrate its AgileTV product to Comcast.” Paper 41, 1. A
`corresponding redacted copy of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply has been filed.
`See Paper 42. Patent Owner states that “[a]lthough Promptu indicated it
`does not oppose Comcast’s motion to seal, Promptu was ordered that it ‘still
`should inform the Board whether the information sought to be sealed by
`Petitioner constitutes confidential information or if the information is in the
`public domain.’ Paper 40 at 2.” Paper 45, 1. Patent Owner presents the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`same arguments as discussed above relating to Petitioner’s Second Motion
`to Seal. The alleged confidential information (i.e., “the specific amount
`Comcast loaned to Patent Owner to conduct trials intended for Patent Owner
`to demonstrate its AgileTV product to Comcast”) is not relied on or referred
`to in the Final Written Decision. A complete and understandable file history
`does not depend on disclosure of any of the alleged confidential information at
`issue. Also, the scope of protection sought by Petitioner is limited, i.e., the
`specific amount Comcast loaned to Patent Owner to conduct trials intended
`for Patent Owner to demonstrate its AgileTV product to Comcast. We
`determine that good cause exists to grant Petitioner’s Third Motion to Seal.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Exhibits 2022, 2023, and
`2031 (Paper 24) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Exhibit 1026
`(Paper 31) is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Patent
`Owner’s Sur-Reply is granted.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2018-00341
`Patent 7,260,538 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James L. Day
`Daniel Callaway
`FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
`jday@fbm.com
`dcallaway@fbm.com
`
`Leo L. Lam
`KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
`llam@kvn.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Jacob A. Schroeder
`Cory C. Bell
`Daniel Klodowski
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`daniel.klodowski@finnegan.com
`
`
`7
`
`

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.

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