`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 37
`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 IPR2018-01116
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01116
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 17) portions of its Reply
`(Paper 14) to the 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) to the Reply and Exhibits 2056–2058.2 Neither
`party filed an opposition to the other party’s Motion to Seal. 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
`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 agreed to a Revised Protective Order. Paper 17, 2; Paper
`20, 1. The agreed Revised Protective Order (Paper 17, Attachment A; Paper
`20, Attachment A) is entered in this proceeding.
`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.
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 15) and a
`public redacted version of Exhibit 1040.
`2 Patent Owner filed a public redacted version of its Sur-reply (Paper 19) and
`public redacted versions of Exhibit 2056–2058.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01116
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`Paper 17, 3–4; Paper 20, 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, 4–5; Paper 20, 4. The parties have shown sufficiently
`that the identified information may be sealed.
`Also, the Decision on Institution (Paper 21) 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.
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that the Motions to Seal are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the agreed Protective Order (Paper 17,
`Attachment A; Paper 20, Attachment A) is entered in this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051, and
`the confidential versions of the Reply (Paper 14), Sur-reply (Paper 18), and
`Exhibits 1040 and 2056–2058 are sealed.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01116
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Daniel Zielberger
`PAUL HASTINGS LLC
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`danielzeilberger@paulhastings.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`4
`
`