`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 22
`
`
`
` Entered: August 1, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00575
`Patent 8,984,565 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00575
`Patent 8,984,565 B2
`
`On July 20, 2018, we entered a Decision denying institution of inter
`partes review, and granted Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal (Papers 8, 11,
`and 17) and Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 16). Paper 20. In particular,
`we granted the Motions to Seal with respect to the following documents:
`Exhibits 2008−23, 2033, and 2038−42; and unredacted versions of Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 9), Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Additional Discovery (Paper 12), Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 15), and Patent Owner’s Reply in
`support of its Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 18). Paper 20, 22−25.
`In addition, the Decision was filed under seal, as it discusses and cites to the
`documents under seal. Id. at 25. The parties were ordered to file jointly a
`proposed redacted version of the Decision. Id. at 26. In response, the
`parties timely filed a Joint Proposed Redacted Version of the Decision.
`Paper 21.
`We have reviewed the Joint Proposed Redacted Version of the
`Decision and find the proposed redactions to be reasonable and consistent
`with the prior redacted papers filed by the parties and their Motions to Seal.
`Accordingly, we hereby enter a public, redacted version of the Decision
`denying institution, with redactions that are consistent with those in the Joint
`Proposed Redacted Version of the Decision submitted by the parties.
`On July 27, 2018, Patent Owner sent an email to the Board, requesting
`authorization to file a motion to unseal portions of the Decision denying
`institution. Patent Owner indicated that it disagreed with the proposed
`redactions reflected in the Joint Proposed Redacted Version of the Decision
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00575
`Patent 8,984,565 B2
`
`(Paper 21). However, as discussed above, we find the proposed redactions
`to be reasonable and consistent with the prior redacted papers filed by the
`parties and their Motions to Seal.
`Authorizing Patent Owner to file a motion to unseal portions of the
`Decision would essentially allow Patent Owner to retract portions of the
`redactions in the prior papers, contrary to all of the Motions to Seal filed in
`this proceeding. More importantly, it would be counter-productive at this
`late stage when all of the Motions to Seal have been granted and the
`Decision denying institution has been entered. Patent Owner should have
`clearly identified the materials that it believed to be non-confidential in its
`Motions to Seal (Papers 8, 11, and 17) and redacted papers submitted with
`those Motions to Seal (Papers 10, 13, and 19). Accordingly, Patent Owner’s
`request for authorization to file a motion to unseal portions of the Decision
`denying institution is denied.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that a public, redacted version of the Decision denying
`institution will be entered in due course; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization
`to file a motion to unseal portions of the Decision denying institution is
`denied.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00575
`Patent 8,984,565 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Patrick D. McPherson
`Diana Sangalli
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`pdmcpherson@dunemorris.com
`dmsangalli@duanemorris.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Robert Whitman
`Andrea Pacelli
`MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP
`robert.whitman@mishcon.com
`andrea.pacelli@mishcon.com
`chanbond-arris-ipr@mishcon.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
