`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Paper 19
`Date: January 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`RED.COM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-01064 (Patent 9,230,299 B2)
`Case IPR2019-01065 (Patent 9,245,314 B2)
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, J. JOHN LEE, and JASON M. REPKO,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion to Expunge Sealed Material
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01064 (Patent 9,230,299 B2)
`Case IPR2019-01065 (Patent 9,245,314 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a motion to expunge the unredacted version of
`Exhibit 2010, which contains confidential information and is subject to the
`protective order in these cases. Paper 18 (“Mot.”).1 Petitioner does not
`oppose. Mot. 1. For the reasons below, we grant the motion.
`Because sealed information ordinarily becomes publicly available
`after denial of a petition to institute a trial or after final judgment in a trial, a
`party that wants to keep the information confidential may file a motion to
`expunge it from the record. USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 22 (Nov. 20, 2019),
`http://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated (“Practice Guide”);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56. The rule balances the public’s interest in maintaining a
`complete and understandable file history and the parties’ need to submit
`confidential information. Practice Guide 22.
`We did not rely on the confidential information in Exhibit 2010 in the
`Decision on Institution in either case. See IPR2019-01064, Paper 17
`(denying institution); IPR2019-01065, Paper 17 (denying institution). And
`Patent Owner’s reasons for expunging the exhibit are appropriate. See Mot.
`1–2. Thus, we find here that the public’s interest in being able to access this
`information does not outweigh Patent Owner’s need to protect their
`confidential information.
`Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s request to expunge the
`unredacted version of Exhibit 2010.
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed similar motions in IPR2019-01064 and IPR2019-
`01065. Compare IPR2019-01064, Paper 18, with IPR2019-01065, Paper 18.
`In this Order, we refer to the papers in IPR2019-01064 for brevity.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01064 (Patent 9,230,299 B2)
`Case IPR2019-01065 (Patent 9,245,314 B2)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`
`and
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to expunge is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted version of Exhibit
`2010 is expunged from the record in IPR2019-01064 and IPR2019-
`01065.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-01064 (Patent 9,230,299 B2)
`Case IPR2019-01065 (Patent 9,245,314 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Parsons
`Andrew Ehmke
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jordan.maucotel@haynesboone.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph Re
`Douglas Muehlhauser
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2jrr@knobbe.com
`2dgm@knobbe.com
`
`4
`
`