`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: February 25, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01102
`Patent 8,811,952
`_______________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01102
`Patent 8.811,952
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The following Motions to Seal are pending:
`1. Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal portions of Exhibit 1040, a
`declaration of Google employee Joseph Shear. A redacted public version of
`the declaration has been submitted. Paper 13. Petitioner also moves to seal
`Exhibits 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051. The Motion is not opposed.
`2. Patent Owner has moved to seal certain portions of Patent Owner’s
`Authorized Sur-Reply (Paper 14) and Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058. Paper
`16. Redacted public versions of these documents have been submitted. The
`Motion is not opposed.
`3. In addition, both Petitioner and Patent Owner move for entry of a
`revised Protective Order based on the Board’s Default Protective Order.
`Paper 13, Attachment A; Paper 16, Attachment A. The same form of order
`has been submitted by the parties.
`In addition, the parties jointly filed a proposed redacted version of the
`Decision on Institution (Ex. 1056) which was entered in the public record.
`Paper 18.
`For the following reasons, the Motions to Seal are granted.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`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 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01102
`Patent 8.811,952
`
`confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having the record open
`to the public. See Garmin, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. 2–3 (Paper 34).
`The parties have agreed to the form of Protective Order found in
`Appendix A to each party’s Motion. The agreed Protective Order is entered
`in this proceeding.
`Petitioner argues Exhibit 1040 (Shear declaration) includes highly
`sensitive information pertaining to the internal policies and procedures of
`Google LLC and certain of its affiliates, and legal agreements between
`Google LLC and Samsung. Paper 13, 3.
`Petitioner argues Exhibit 1043 contains highly confidential
`information pertaining to Google LLC’s financial records. Id.
`Petitioner argues Exhibit 1047 contains highly confidential
`communications exchanged between Google and Samsung. Id. at 3–4.
`Petitioner argues Exhibits 1048 and 1051 contain highly confidential
`information pertaining to the relationship between Google and Samsung. Id.
`at 4.
`
`Petitioner argues that the pre-institution Reply (Paper 10) and Exhibits
`1040, 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051 contain confidential information “the
`public disclosure of which could cause Petitioner irreparable harm.” Id. at 4.
`Patent Owner argues the designated materials sought be sealed were
`obtained from Samsung. Patent Owner states Samsung represents that they
`contain business materials that are confidential to Samsung and Google.
`Paper 16, 3–4. Patent Owner argues Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058 contain
`highly confidential communications between Samsung and Google. Id. at
`5–7.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01102
`Patent 8.811,952
`
`
`We observe that the relevance of these exhibits to the merits of this
`case is minimal because they relate only to real party-in-interest and privy
`issues and are therefore not relevant to the merits. Balancing the potential
`harm to the parties against the need for public disclosure, we determine that
`parties have shown sufficiently that the identified information should be
`sealed.
`The Decision on Institution (Paper 17) 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 will be entered in the public record.
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that the pending Motions to Seal are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the agreed Protective Order (Exhibit A to
`Papers 13 and 16) is entered in this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Exhibits 1040, 1043, 1047,
`1048, and 1051, Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2056, 2057, and 2058, and the
`confidential versions of the Reply to the Preliminary Response (Paper 10),
`and Sur-reply (Paper 14) are sealed.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01102
`Patent 8.811,952
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Daniel Zeilberger
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`danielzeilberger@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sangeeta G. Shah
`David S. Bir
`Richard J. Cantor
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`sshah@brookskushman.com
`dbir@brookskushman.com
`rjcantor@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`