`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`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 IPR2018-01047 (Patent 9,516,129 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01049 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01101 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
` Case IPR2018-01117 (Patent 9,351,254 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KARL D. EASTHOM, JONI Y. CHANG,
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal and Expunge
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54, 42.56
`
`1 This Decision applies to each of the listed cases. The parties are not
`authorized to use this caption for subsequent papers.
`2 This is not a decision by an expanded panel of the Board. Judges Dang,
`Easthom, and Harlow are paneled in IPR2018-01047, -01049, and -01101.
`Judges Chang, Giannetti, and Weinschenk are paneled in IPR2018-01117.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01047 (Patent 9,516,129 B2)
`IPR2018-01049 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01101 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01117 (Patent 9,351,254 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 14) portions of its Reply
`(Paper 15) to the Preliminary Response and Exhibits 1040, 1043, 1047,
`1048, and 1051.3,4 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 21) portions
`of its Sur-Reply (Paper 19) to the Reply and Exhibits 2056–2058.5 Neither
`party filed an opposition to the other party’s Motion to Seal. Petitioner filed
`an Unopposed Motion to Expunge all the sealed documents. Paper 36. For
`the following reasons, the Motions to Seal and Expunge 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
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise noted, we refer to the motions and exhibits filed in
`IPR2018-01047. With one exception, the parties filed similar motions, and
`exhibits with the same Exhibit numbers in IPR2018-01049, -01101, and -
`01117. In IPR2018-01049, Patent Owner filed a confidential version of the
`Sur-reply (Paper 17) but did not file a motion to seal that paper.
`Nevertheless, we consider a motion to seal the Sur-reply as having been filed
`in IPR2018-01049, based the filing of the confidential version of the Sur-
`Reply and Motion to Expunge (Paper 33) in IPR2018-01049, and based on
`the filing of the relevant Motions to Seal in the other three cases.
`4 Petitioner filed a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 16) and a
`public redacted version of Exhibit 1040.
`5 Patent Owner filed a public redacted version of its Sur-Reply (Paper 20)
`and public redacted versions of Exhibit 2056–2058.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01047 (Patent 9,516,129 B2)
`IPR2018-01049 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01101 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01117 (Patent 9,351,254 B2)
`
`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 14, 2;
`Paper 21, 2. The agreed Revised Protective Order (Paper 14, Appendix A;
`Paper 21, Attachment A) is entered in each of the above-listed proceedings.
`The parties argue that the Reply, Sur-Reply, and Exhibits 1040, 1043,
`1047, 1048, 1051, and 2056–58, in each of the above-listed proceedings,
`contain confidential information relating to legal agreements and
`communications between Petitioner and Samsung. Paper 14, 2–4; Paper 21,
`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 14, 4;
`Paper 21, 4.
`Also, the Decision on Institution (Paper 22) 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.
`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 in IPR2018-01047
`(Papers 14, 21 and 36), IPR2018-01049 (Paper 14 and 33) IPR2018-01101
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01047 (Patent 9,516,129 B2)
`IPR2018-01049 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01101 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01117 (Patent 9,351,254 B2)
`
`(Papers 14, 19, and 34), and IPR2018-01117 (Papers 16, 19, and 33) are
`granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the agreed Revised Protective Order
`(e.g., IPR2018-01047, Paper 14, Appendix A) is entered in each of the
`above-listed cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1043, 1047, 1048, and 1051, and
`the confidential versions of Exhibits 1040 and 2056–58, are sealed and shall
`be expunged in each of the above-listed cases;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of Petitioner’s
`Reply to the Preliminary Response in IPR2018-01047 (Paper 15), IPR2018-
`01049 (Paper 15), IPR2018-01101 (Paper 15), and IPR2018-01117
`(Paper 13) are sealed and shall be expunged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of Patent
`Owner’s Sur-Reply in IPR2018-01047 (Paper 19), IPR2018-01049
`(Paper 17), IPR2018-01101 (Paper 17), and IPR2018-01117 (Paper 17) are
`sealed and shall be expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential versions of the Decisions
`on Institution in IPR2018-01047 (Paper 22), IPR2018-01049 (Paper 19),
`IPR2018-01101 (Paper 20), and IPR2018-01117 (Paper 20) shall be
`expunged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01047 (Patent 9,516,129 B2)
`IPR2018-01049 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01101 (Patent 9,553,816 B2)
`IPR2018-01117 (Patent 9,351,254 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Daniel Zeilberger
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`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
`
`5
`
`