Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 38
`Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal and Expunge
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54, 42.56
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 38
`Entered: March 29, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal and Expunge
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54, 42.56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 3) Exhibit 1034, and a Motion
`to Seal (Paper 17) portions of its Reply (Paper 18) to the Preliminary
`Response and Exhibits 1040, 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051.1 Patent Owner
`filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 15) portions of its Preliminary Response
`(Paper 11), and a Motion to Seal (Paper 22) portions of its Sur-Reply
`(Paper 20) to the Reply and Exhibits 2056–2058.2 Neither party filed an
`opposition to the other party’s Motions to Seal. Petitioner filed an
`Unopposed Motion to Expunge all the sealed documents. Paper 37. For the
`following reasons, the Motions to Seal and Expunge are granted.
`II. ANALYSIS
`The record for an inter partes review shall be made available to the
`public, except as otherwise ordered, and a document filed with a motion to
`seal shall be treated as sealed until the motion is decided. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. There is a strong public policy that favors
`making information filed in an inter partes review open to the public.
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, slip
`op. 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34). The moving party bears the
`burden of showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(c). The standard for granting a motion to seal is good cause, which
`includes showing that the information addressed in the motion to seal is truly
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 19) and a
`public redacted version of Exhibit 1040.
`2 Patent Owner filed public redacted versions of its Preliminary Response
`(Paper 12) and Sur-Reply (Paper 21), and public redacted versions of
`Exhibits 2056–2058.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`
`confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public
`interest in having the record open to the public. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; Garmin,
`Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. 2–3 (Paper 34).
`The parties agreed to a Revised Protective Order. Paper 17, 2;
`Paper 22, 2. The agreed Revised Protective Order (Paper 17, Appendix A;
`Paper 22, Attachment A) is entered in this proceeding.
`The parties argue that Exhibit 1034 and the Preliminary Response
`contain confidential information relating to Petitioner’s corporate document
`management. Paper 3, 3–4; Paper 15, 1. The parties also argue that
`releasing the confidential information to the public would be harmful to the
`Petitioner, and the public’s interest in the confidential information is
`minimal because the declaration of Jordan Schnaps (Exhibit 1031) contains
`a sufficient public description of the contents of Exhibit 1034 without
`releasing any sensitive information. Paper 3, 2–4; Paper 15, 1. The parties
`have shown sufficiently that the identified information may be sealed.
`The parties further argue that the Reply, Sur-Reply, and Exhibits
`1040, 1043, 1047, 1048, 1051, and 2056–2058 contain confidential
`information relating to legal agreements and communications between
`Petitioner and Samsung. Paper 17, 2–4; Paper 22, 6–7. The parties also
`argue that the public’s interest in the confidential information is minimal
`because it relates to real party in interest and privy issues and otherwise is
`not relevant to the merits of the case. Paper 17, 4; Paper 22, 3–4.
`Also, the Decision on Institution (Paper 23) discusses some of the
`confidential information, and, thus, was sealed. The parties jointly filed a
`proposed redacted version of the Decision on Institution (Exhibit 1056),
`which was entered in the public record.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`
`
`The parties have shown that good cause exists to seal and expunge the
`identified information.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that the Motions to Seal and Expunge are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the agreed Revised Protective Order
`(Paper 17, Appendix A; Paper 22, Attachment A) is entered in this
`proceeding;FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1034, 1043, 1047, 1048,
`1051, and the confidential versions of the Preliminary Response (Paper 11),
`Reply (Paper 18), Sur-Reply (Paper 20), and Exhibits 1040 and 2056–58, are
`sealed and shall be expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential version of the Decision
`on Institution (Paper 23) shall be expunged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01048
`Patent 9,516,129 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Stephen E. Kabakoff
`Kara A. Specht
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`stephen.kabakoff@finnegan.com
`kara.specht@finnegan.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendfar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`5
`
`
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
