`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: February 26, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01051
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R.§§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01051
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 15) portions of its Reply
`(Paper 16) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, and Exhibits 1040,
`1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051.1 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper
`20) portions of its Sur-reply (Paper 18) and Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058.2
`Neither party files an opposition to any of the Motions to Seal. For the
`following reasons, the Motions to Seal are granted.
`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 inter partes review proceedings open to the
`public. Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, Case IPR2012-00001,
`slip op. at 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). That includes showing that the information is truly confidential,
`and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having
`an open record. See Garmin, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 3. The
`standard for granting a motion to seal is good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`The parties 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 15, 3–4; Paper 20, 6–7. The parties also argue that the public’s
`
`
`1 Petitioner submitted a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 17) and a
`public redacted version of Exhibit 1040.
`2 Patent Owner submitted a public redacted version of its Sur-reply (Paper
`19) and public redacted versions of Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01051
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`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 15, 4–5; Paper 20, 4. The parties have shown sufficiently
`that the identified information may be sealed.
`In addition, our Decision on Institution (Paper 21) is filed under seal,
`as it discusses and cites to the documents under seal. The parties jointly
`filed a proposed redacted version of the Decision in Exhibit 1056, which
`also has been entered into the record as Paper 28. Paper 23.
`Lastly, the parties agreed to a Revised Protective Order. Paper 15, 2;
`Paper 20, 1. The agreed Revised Protective Order (Paper 15, Attachment A;
`Paper 20, Attachment A) is entered in this proceeding.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that the Motions to Seal are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051, and
`the confidential versions of the Reply (Paper 16), Sur-reply (Paper 18), and
`Exhibits 1040 and 2056–2058 are sealed; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the agreed Protective Order (Paper 15,
`Attachment A; Paper 20) is entered in this proceeding.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01051
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Erika Arner
`Rachel Emsley
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`Nathan Lowenstein
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.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
