`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`On December 19, 2019, the Board issued a final written decision, granting
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`I.
`
`motions to seal Exhibits 2008 and 2009 in their entirety. Paper 60, 76. However, the
`
`Board also denied (1) a motion to seal Exhibit 2013 in its entirety; (2) a motion to
`
`seal a non-redacted version of Exhibit 2004; and (3) denied motions to seal
`
`unredacted versions of Preliminary Response (POPR) (Paper 19), Reply to POPR
`
`(Paper 25), Sur-Reply to POPR (Paper 30), Patent Owner Response (POR) (Paper
`
`38), and Sur-Reply to POR (Paper 45). Id., 76-78. The parties held a telephone
`
`conference with the Board on January 10, 2020 to discuss filing new redacted
`
`versions of the documents that addressed the Board’s concerns. On January 17,
`
`2020, the Board issued an order allowing Petitioner to file a renewed motion to seal.
`
`II. Requested Relief
`The documents reference and cite to certain material that Petitioner
`
`produced according to voluntary discovery. That material contains confidential,
`
`sensitive commercial information, including closely held information related to
`
`Unified’s core business. Petitioner submits that the unredacted version of the
`
`documents should be sealed because they contain confidential information.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.55, Petitioner moves to seal the
`
`unredacted documents and to redact the confidential information from the public
`
`versions of the documents filed herewith. Patent Owner takes no position regarding
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`the confidentiality of the materials asserted by Unified to be confidential, but does
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`not oppose the motion.
`
`III. Good Cause Exists
`In deciding whether to seal documents, the Board must find “good cause”
`
`and must “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.” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36 (April 5, 2013). Here,
`
`the balance overwhelmingly favors protecting Unified’s highly confidential
`
`information by sealing these limited and targeted redactions. The information
`
`Unified seeks to protect has nothing to do with patentability, but rather involves
`
`Unified’s status as the sole real party-in-interest and relates to its confidential
`
`business information. For this reason, the public interest in having access to the
`
`unredacted versions of the documents is minimal, while the public interest is well-
`
`served in keeping such business information readily available and exchangeable
`
`between parties based on voluntary discovery, without the fear of incidental public
`
`exposure of confidential business information.
`
`Disclosure of Unified’s highly confidential business information would
`
`provide Unified’s competitors and would-be business rivals with a roadmap for
`
`replicating Unified’s unique, valuable business model and would reveal contractual
`
`business information between two parties produced voluntarily under a joint
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`protective order. Accordingly, the public interest would be served by maintaining
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`the confidentiality of this information. Thus, good cause exists for sealing the
`
`confidential information in the documents discussed below. Petitioner hereby
`
`requests that the unredacted version of these documents be sealed in their entireties
`
`and the confidential information be redacted in the corresponding public versions.
`
`A. Exhibit 2013
`Exhibit 2013 is Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses of Kevin
`
`Jakel and includes both confidential and nonconfidential information. Unified
`
`previously requested that Exhibit 2013 be redacted in its entirety, but has now
`
`prepared a public version (Exhibit 1032) containing only targeted redactions.
`
`Specifically, Exhibit 2013 includes a list of Unified’s members in its “Content
`
`Delivery” NPE Zone. Ex. 2013, 6-12. Although the document notes that Unified’s
`
`members listed in italics are public, the fact that these members are part of the
`
`“Content Delivery” NPE Zone is confidential. In addition, Exhibit 2013 also
`
`includes percentages related to Unified’s revenue and expenses. Id., 19-20. These
`
`numbers are not public and are sensitive to Unified’s business financial
`
`information and constitute highly confidential business information.
`
`B. Exhibit 2004
`Exhibit 2004 is a deposition transcript of Kevin Jakel and includes both
`
`confidential and nonconfidential information. Unified previously requested that
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2004 be redacted, but has now prepared a new public version (Exhibit
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`1033) with more targeted redactions to keep highly confidential information from
`
`the public. In particular, the redactions are targeted to protect information related
`
`to Unified’s core business, membership terms, business strategy, and business
`
`financial information and constitutes highly confidential business information, as
`
`well as trade secrets. For example, the redactions relate to discussions of contracts,
`
`strategies, finances, and confidential membership information.
`
`C. Preliminary Response (Paper 19), Reply to Preliminary Response
`(Paper 25), Sur-Reply to Preliminary Response (Paper 30), Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 38), Sur-Reply to POR (Paper 45)
`The POPR, Reply to POPR, Sur-Reply to POPR, POR, and Sur-Reply to
`
`POR each include both confidential and nonconfidential information. During the
`
`telephone conference with the Board, the Board indicated a concern that the fact
`
`that Apple is a member was redacted from some documents, but not others. During
`
`the call, Petitioner explained that this fact became public during the course of the
`
`IPR proceeding. Therefore, this fact has not been redacted from the new public
`
`versions prepared by Petitioner. In addition, these new public versions only
`
`includes more targeted redactions to keep highly confidential information from the
`
`public. In particular, these documents contain citations to confidential information
`
`of (1) Exhibit 2004 that discusses Unified’s confidential financial information,
`
`business strategy, and relationship of certain members to a particular zone; (2)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2013 that includes Unified’s revenue percentages; (3) Exhibit 2006 that
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`discusses Unified’s confidential financial information; and (4) Exhibit 2008 which
`
`includes confidential contractional membership terms. The information targeted for
`
`redaction is closely held and constitutes highly confidential business information.
`
`D. Final Written Decision (Paper 60)
`Petitioner proposes targeted redactions to the final written decision. This
`
`information is closely held information related to Unified confidential financial
`
`information, including the characterization of importance of particular members
`
`and constitutes highly confidential business information.
`
`IV. Certification of Non-Publication
`The undersigned counsel for Petitioner certifies the information sought to be
`
`sealed by this Motion to Seal has not been published or otherwise made public.
`
`V.
`
`Protective Order
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Protective Order on August 31,
`
`2018. The information subject to the instant unopposed Motion to Seal was all
`
`voluntarily produced under that joint protective order signed by both parties.
`
`VI. Request for Conference Call with the Board
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Seal,
`
`Petitioner hereby request a conference call with the Board to discuss any concerns
`
`prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` /Alyssa J. Holtslander/
`Alyssa J. Holtslander
`Reg. No. 64,026
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 6, 2020 a copy of the foregoing
`
`UNOPPOSED RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL was served via electronic mail, as
`
`agreed to by counsel, upon the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`101 Brambach Rd.
`Scarsdale, NY 10583
`Email: ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Paralegal
`Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
