Joint Motion for Protective Order, IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`Case IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`________________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HYPERMEDIA NAVIGATION LLC
`Patent Owner
`________________
`Case IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`________________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED.
`Petitioner Unified Patents, Inc. (“Unified”) and Patent Owner Hypermedia
`
`Navigation LLC (“Hypermedia”) hereby submit this Joint Motion for Entry of
`
`Protective Order. The parties have agreed to the [Proposed] Stipulated Protective
`
`Order (“Proposed SPO”) submitted herewith as Exhibit 1034. The Proposed SPO is
`
`a slightly revised version of the Board’s Default Protective Order, as indicated by
`
`the redlined comparison submitted as Exhibit 1035. The parties respectfully request
`
`that the Board enter the Proposed SPO in this proceeding. The Board provided
`
`authorization for filing this motion via e-mail dated October 5, 2018.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE BOARD TO ENTER THE
`PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER.
`The Proposed SPO is a revised version of the Board’s Default Protective
`
`Order, containing a few small revisions.
`
`First, it has been revised to include a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation, such that competitively sensitive
`
`information will be shielded from disclosure to the opposing party’s officers or
`
`employees. The parties have agreed to exchange voluntary discovery relating to the
`
`issue of real-party-in-interest and, as such, anticipate that certain competitively
`
`sensitive confidential financial and/or business information may be exchanged as
`
`part of that process. Because such information could cause competitive harm, the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`parties seek to include the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`
`ONLY” designation.
`
`Second, the Proposed SPO provides that to the extent information is made
`
`available for inspection, those items need not be marked with a confidentiality
`
`designation until the item is copied. The default protective order does not include a
`
`provision specifically addressing materials made available for inspection, and the
`
`procedure here provide an efficient manner of designation.
`
`Third, it provides that the parties should meet and confer in good faith if there
`
`is a disagreement on confidentiality designations, which will help ensure the parties
`
`do not burden the Board unnecessarily.
`
`Fourth, it provides small revisions to the provisions relating to who may view
`
`confidential materials, including provisions relating to outside counsel being
`
`permitted to view the materials and placing a limit on the number of employees of a
`
`party that may view the materials. These small revisions are designed to avoid
`
`inadvertent disclosure of confidential materials.
`
`Fifth, it provides that privileged materials may be redacted from documents
`
`that are produced and that confidential materials will only be used for this
`
`proceeding, in order to protect confidential materials and privileged information.
`
`The parties submit that none of the proposed changes affect access to
`
`confidential information for employees or representatives of the United States Patent
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`and Trademark Office who have a need for access to the confidential information
`
`for this proceeding. To protect the parties’ confidential information and to promote
`
`efficiency in the resolution of their dispute, the parties submit that good cause exists
`
`for the Board to enter the proposed Protective Order.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Board
`
`grant this motion and enter the [Proposed] Stipulated Protective Order (Ex. 1034)
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`Roshan Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Jonathan R. Bowser, Reg. No. 54,574
`Michelle A. Callaghan, Reg. No. 75,665
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`BY: /s/ Jason M. Perilla_______
`Michael L. Wach, Reg. No. 54,517
`Jason M. Perilla, Reg. No. 65,731
`Adam L. Baumli, Reg. No. 64,433
`
`COUNSEL FOR PATENT OWNER
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01286
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,830
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that this
`
`JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER and accompanying
`
`exhibits were served on October 8, 2018 by filing these documents through the
`
`Patent Review Processing System, as well as by e-mailing copies to all practitioners
`
`of record, including:
`
`Michael L. Wach (Reg. No. 54,517) at mikewachsr@gmail.com
`
`Jason M. Perilla (Reg. No. 65,731) at jason.perilla@thomashorstemeyer.com
`
`Adam L. Baumli (Reg. No. 64,433) at adam@baumlilawfirm.com
`
`Jason R. Mudd (Reg. No. 57,700) at jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`Roshan Mansinghani (Reg. No. 62,429) at roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Eric A. Buresh (Reg. No. 50,394) at eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud (Reg. No. 72,518) at jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser (Reg. No. 54,574) at jbowser@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Michelle A. Callaghan (Reg. No. 75,665) at michelle.callaghan@eriseip.com
`
`
`Date: October 8, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason R. Mudd
`Jason R. Mudd, Reg. No. 57,700
`
`
`
`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
