`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 24
`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 IPR2018-01050 (Patent 9,247,019 B2)
` Case IPR2018-01118 (Patent 9,325,600 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01050 (Patent 9,247,019 B2)
`IPR2018-01118 (Patent 9,325,600 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 1051.2,3 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 11) portions
`of its Preliminary Response (Paper 9) and Exhibits 2056, 2057, 2061, 2068,
`and 2069, and a Motion to Seal (Paper 19) portions of its Sur-Reply (Paper
`18) to the Reply.4 Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Expunge all the
`sealed documents. Paper 31. Neither party filed an opposition to the other
`party’s Motion(s) to Seal. For the following reasons, the Motions to Seal
`and Expunge are granted.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`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 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 moving party bears the
`burden of showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(c). The standard for granting a motion to seal is good cause, which
`
`
`2 We refer to the motions and exhibits filed in IPR2018-01050. Similar
`motions, and exhibits with the same Exhibit numbers, were filed in
`IPR2018-01118.
`3 Petitioner filed a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 16) and a
`public redacted version of Exhibit 1040.
`4 Patent Owner filed public redacted versions of its Preliminary Response
`(Paper 10) and Sur-Reply (Paper 17).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01050 (Patent 9,247,019 B2)
`IPR2018-01118 (Patent 9,325,600 B2)
`
`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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; Garmin,
`Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. 2–3 (Paper 34).
`The parties agreed to a Revised Protective Order. Paper 11, 1–2;
`Paper 14, 2. The agreed Revised Protective Order (Paper 11, Attachment A;
`Paper 14, Appendix A) is entered in each of the above-listed proceedings.
`The parties argue that the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply,
`and Exhibits 1040, 1043, 1047, 1048, 1051, 2056, 2057, 2061, 2068, and
`2069, in each of the above-listed proceedings, contain confidential
`information relating to legal agreements and communications between
`Petitioner and Samsung. Paper 11, 5–7; Paper 14, 2–4; Paper 19, 5. 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 11, 3–4; Paper 14,
`4; Paper 19, 3–4.
`Also, the Decision on Institution (Paper 20) 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 IPR2018-01050
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01050 (Patent 9,247,019 B2)
`IPR2018-01118 (Patent 9,325,600 B2)
`
`(Papers 11, 14, 19, and 31) and IPR2018-01118 (Papers 12, 17, 20, and 23)
`are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2018-01050, the agreed Revised
`Protective Order (Paper 11, Attachment A; Paper 14, Appendix A) is
`entered;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2018-01050, Exhibits 1043, 1047,
`1048, 1051, 2056, 2057, 2061, 2068, and 2069, and the confidential versions
`of the Preliminary Response (Paper 9), Reply (Paper 15), Sur-Reply (Paper
`18), and Exhibit 1040, are sealed;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2018-01118, the agreed Protective
`Order (Paper 12, Attachment A; Paper 17, Attachment A) is entered;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in IPR2018-01118, Exhibits 1043, 1047,
`1048, 1051, 2056, 2057, 2061, 2068, and 2069, and the confidential versions
`of the Preliminary Response (Paper 10), Reply (Paper 14), Sur-Reply (Paper
`19), and Exhibit 1040, are sealed; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the confidential version of the Decision
`on Institution in IPR2018-01050 (Paper 20) shall be expunged.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01050 (Patent 9,247,019 B2)
`IPR2018-01118 (Patent 9,325,600 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Daniel Zeilberger
`Arvind Jairam
`Quadeer Ahmed
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`danielzeilberger@paulhastings.com
`arvindjairam@paulhastings.com
`quadeerahmed@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`