`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`Paper 30
`Filed: November 8, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FASTENERS FOR RETAIL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RTC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`Case IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`Case IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
` Case IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)1
`
`____________
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, MICHAEL L. WOODS, and
`JASON W. MELVIN Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Four Motions to Seal in Four Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`1 We issue one Order and enter it in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
`IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, the parties filed several
`motions to seal papers and exhibits filed in connection with a case-
`dispositive real party-in-interest (“RPI”) issue. See, e.g., Paper 25, 14
`(determining that Petitioner failed to identify all RPIs and denying
`institution of IPR2018-00741 on that basis). 2
`For the reasons that follow, we grant each of these motions in each of
`the proceedings.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`The default rule in an inter partes review proceeding is that the
`record, including all papers and exhibits, shall be available to the public.
`37 CFR § 42.14. “There is a strong public policy for making all information
`filed in a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding open to the public.”
`Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, IPR2012–00001, slip op. at 1–2
`(PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34). 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 truly confidential, and
`that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having the
`record open to the public. See Garmin, Paper 34, 2–3. The moving party
`bears the burden of showing that the relief requested should be granted, and
`establishing that the information sought to be sealed is confidential
`information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations to the record will be to IPR2018-00741.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
`IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)
`
`
`We address each of the motions separately, below.
`
`
`
`A. Patent Owner’s First Motion to Seal (Paper 10)
`RTC Industries, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a motion to seal its
`Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim. Resp.”) and the declaration of
`Richard Nathan (Ex. 2001) filed in support therewith. Paper 10. In
`particular, Patent Owner seeks to seal confidential settlement information
`and confidential communications. Id. at 2. Patent Owner also submits a
`redacted version of its Preliminary Response. Id. at 4.
`Patent Owner conferred with Petitioner and the parties agree to be
`bound by the Board’s default protective order. Id. at 3. Petitioner does not
`oppose Patent Owner’s motion.
`Based on our review, we determine that there is good cause for
`sealing the unredacted version of the Preliminary Response and Exhibit
`2001 and for entry of the Board’s default protective order. These documents
`contain confidential information and we find minimal harm to the public’s
`interest in restricting access to them.
`
`
`B. Petitioner’s First Motion to Seal (Paper 17)
`Fasteners for Retail, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion to seal its Reply
`to Patent Owner’s RPI argument (Paper 15, “Reply”) and the declaration of
`James Conroy (Ex. 1039). Paper 17. Specifically, Petitioner seeks to seal
`confidential commercial information and information relating to settlement
`communications. Id. at 2. Petitioner further submits a redacted version of
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
`IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)
`
`its Reply and agrees to be bound by the Board’s default protective order. Id.
`at 3. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s motion.
`Based on our review, we determine that there is good cause for
`sealing the unredacted version of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit 1039.
`These documents contain confidential information and we find minimal
`harm to the public’s interest in restricting access to them.
`
`
`C. Patent Owner’s Second Motion to Seal (Paper 21)
`Patent Owner also filed a motion to seal its Sur-Reply (Paper 20,
`“Sur-Reply”) in response to Petitioner’s Reply and a supplemental
`declaration of Mr. Nathan (Ex. 2012). Paper 21. As with its first motion,
`Patent Owner seeks to seal confidential communications and information
`relating to settlement. Id. at 2. Patent Owner further submits a redacted
`version of its Sur-Reply and agrees to be bound by the Board’s default
`protective order. Id. at 3. Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s
`motion.
`Based on our review, we determine that there is good cause for
`sealing the unredacted version of Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply and Exhibit
`2012. These documents contain confidential information and we find
`minimal harm to the public’s interest in restricting access to them.
`
`
`D. Petitioner’s Second Motion to Seal (Paper 24)
`Petitioner also filed a motion to seal a second reply (Paper 22, “Sur-
`Reply #2”) filed in response to Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 20). Paper
`24. For reasons similar to those discussed above, Petitioner seeks to seal
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
`IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)
`
`confidential commercial information and information relating to settlement
`communications. Id. at 2. Petitioner further submits a redacted version of
`its Sur-Reply #2 and agrees to be bound by the Board’s default protective
`order. Id. at 3. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s motion.
`Based on our review, we determine that there is good cause for
`sealing the unredacted version of Petitioner’s Sur-Reply #2. This document
`contains confidential information and we find minimal harm to the public’s
`interest in restricting access to it.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s first motion to seal (Paper 10 in
`IPR2018-00741; Paper 10 in IPR2018-00742; Paper 10 in IPR2018-00743;
`and Paper 12 in IPR2018-00744) is granted and the Board’s default
`protective order is entered;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s first motion to seal (Paper 17
`in IPR2018-00741; Paper 17 in IPR2018-00742; Paper 16 in IPR2018-
`00743; and Paper 18 in IPR2018-00744) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s second motion to seal
`(Paper 21 in IPR2018-00741; Paper 23 in IPR2018-00742; Paper 20 in
`IPR2018-00743; and Paper 22 in IPR2018-00744) is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s second motion to seal (Paper
`24 in IPR2018-00741; Paper 26 in IPR2018-00742; Paper 23 in IPR2018-
`00743; and Paper 25 in IPR2018-00744) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00741 (Patent 9,173,505)
`IPR2018-00742 (Patent 9,149,132)
`IPR2018-00743 (Patent 9,504,321)
`IPR2018-00744 (Patent 9,635,957)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Douglas H. Siegel
`William B. Berndt
`Ron N. Sklar
`Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP
`dsiegel@honigman.com
`wberndt@honigman.com
`rsklar@honigman.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph J. Berghammer
`Scott A. Burow
`Bradley J. Van Pelt
`Kevin C. Keenan
`Eric A. Zelepugas
`Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
`jberghammer@bannerwitcoff.com
`sburow@bannerwitcoff.com
`bvanpelt@bannerwitcoff.com
`kkeenan@bannerwitcoff.com
`ezelepugas@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`