`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: January 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01106
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01106
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed two Motions to Seal (Papers 16 and 17) certain
`portions of its Reply (Papers 14 and 15) to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response, and Exhibits 1030−1035, 1047, 1048, and 1051.1 Patent Owner
`filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 20) portions of its Sur-reply2 (Papers 18 and
`19) because the Sur-reply contains “the same information Petitioner has
`moved to seal” and “is redacted to protect highly sensitive information
`pertaining to legal agreements and confidential communications between
`Samsung and Google LLC.” Paper 20, 1−2. Neither party files an
`opposition to any of the Motions to Seal.
`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.
`
`
`1 Petitioner submited a confidential version and a public redacted version of
`its Reply and Exhibits 1030 and 1035.
`2 Patent Owner submited a confidential version and a public redacted version
`of its Sur-reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01106
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`Upon considerations of the parties’ Motions to Seal, we determine
`that good cause exists to keep the confidential information in Petitioner’s
`Reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, and Exhibits 1030−1035, 1047, 1048, and
`1051 under seal as they related to confidential business information. For
`example, Exhibit 1030 contains a Declaration from Mr. Joseph Sear, an
`attorney for Google LLC. Ex. 1030 ¶ 1. As Petitioner explains,
`“Exhibit 1030 is a document provided to Samsung by Google LLC subject
`to a Revised Protective Order . . . entered into between Google LLC and
`SEVEN Networks, LLC in IPR2018-01102.” Paper 16, 1. Petitioner moves
`to seal Exhibit 1030 “to protect highly sensitive information pertaining to
`structure and operation of Google LLC, the internal policies and procedures
`of Google LLC and certain of its affiliates, and legal agreements between
`Google LLC and Samsung.” Id. at 2. And “[t]he information that is
`requested to be sealed is being submitted only to rebut Patent Owner’s
`arguments regarding real party-in-interest and privity,” and “is otherwise
`unimportant to the merits of this proceeding, and therefore the public’s
`interest in having access to this information is minimal.” Id.
`Accordingly, we agree with the parties that the confidential
`information in Petitioner’s Reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, and
`Exhibits 1030−1035, 1047, 1048, and 1051 should be kept under seal. The
`parties’ Motions to Seal are hereby granted.
`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 1052, which
`also has been entered into the record as Paper 30. Paper 23.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01106
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`Lastly, along with each of their Motions to Seal, the parties filed a
`Stipulated Default Protective Order. Paper 16, Attachment A; Paper 17,
`Attachment A; Paper 20, Attachment A. The Stipulated Default Protective
`Orders agreed to by the parties are copies of the default Protective Order set
`forth in Appendix B of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,756−66 (Aug. 14, 2012). As such, we hereby enter the Stipulated
`Default Protective Orders, which govern the treatment and filing of
`confidential information in the instant proceeding.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Seal (Papers 16 and 17) and
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 20) are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of Petitioner’s
`Reply (Paper 15), Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 18), Decision on
`Institution (Paper 21), and Exhibits 1030 and 1035, shall be kept under seal
`as “Board and Parties Only”; and that each of Exhibits 1031−1034, 1047,
`1048, and 1051, in its entirety, shall be kept under seal as “Board and Parties
`Only”; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulated Default Protective Orders
`(Paper 16, Attachment A; Paper 17, Attachment A; Paper 20, Attachment A)
`be entered.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01106
`Patent 9,516,127 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy Monaldo
`Roberto Devoto
`Kim Leung
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`leung@fr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`