`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 30
`Entered: January 18, 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 IPR2018-01125
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01125
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner filed Motions to Seal (Papers 13, 14) portions of its Reply
`(Paper 16) to the Preliminary Response and Exhibits 1030−1035, 1047,
`1048, and 1051.1 Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 19) portions of
`its Sur-reply (Paper 17) to the Reply.2 Neither party filed an opposition to
`any of the Motions 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 the Protective Order found in Appendix B of the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide. Paper 14, 1; Paper 19, 2. The agreed
`Protective Order (Paper 14, Attachment A; Paper 19, Attachment A) is
`entered in this proceeding.3
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed a public redacted version of its Reply (Paper 15) and public
`redacted versions of Exhibits 1030 and 1035.
`2 Patent Owner filed a public redacted version of its Sur-reply (Paper 18).
`3 Petitioner agreed to treat Exhibit 1030, which contains confidential
`information of Google LLC, according to a Revised Protective Order that
`Google LLC and Patent Owner agreed to in another case. Paper 13, 1,
`Attachment A; Paper 14, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01125
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`
`The parties argue that the Reply, Sur-reply, and Exhibits 1030−1035,
`1047, 1048, and 1051 contain confidential information relating to legal
`agreements and communications between Petitioner and Google LLC.
`Paper 13, 2; Paper 14, 2–4; Paper 19, 2. 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 13, 2; Paper 14, 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 1052),
`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 14,
`Attachment A; Paper 19, Attachment A) is entered in this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 1031−1034, 1047, 1048, and
`1051, and the confidential versions of the Reply (Paper 16), Sur-reply (Paper
`17), and Exhibits 1030 and 1035 are sealed.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01125
`Patent 9,351,254 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy Monaldo
`Roberto Devoto
`Craig Deutsch
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`jjm@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`deutsch@fr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax
`Edward Hsieh
`Parham Hendifar
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
