`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: November 3, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00598
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.74
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00598
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion to expunge the
`collateral agreement filed as Exhibit 2002 as containing highly-sensitive
`confidential information of Patent Owner and third parties. Patent Owner
`also requested that if the Board denies Patent Owner’s request for
`authorization, the Board answer two questions: (1) Will the Board provide
`notice to the parties in the event a person requests access to the collateral
`agreement or if the Board decides to grant access to the collateral agreement
`under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c); and (2). More generally,
`can the Board direct us to any references explaining the Board’s
`procedure(s) in the event of such a request or grant?
`In light of 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and DTN, LLC v. Farms Tech., LLC,
`IPR2018-01412, Paper 21 (precedential) (denying motion to expunge
`collateral agreements filed as exhibits to motion to terminate), we deny
`Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to expunge Exhibit
`2002 for containing highly-sensitive confidential information of Patent
`Owner and third parties.
`In response to Patent Owner’s two questions regarding confidentiality,
`we note that the procedures regarding third-party requests for access to the
`confidential agreement are outlined in 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.74(c). In particular, 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) states that the agreement “shall
`be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request,
`or to any person on a showing of good cause.” Thus, the requirement for
`access by a third party (not a Federal Government agency) is a showing of
`good cause. This “good cause” showing is a high burden, such that showing
`need or an alleged nexus to the substance of an ongoing post-grant review is
`insufficient. Except for being the basis for regulatory and statutory
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00598
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`termination of the proceeding, confidential settlement agreements are
`irrelevant to issues raised in post-grant reviews, and, as such, the Board
`generally denies third-party requests for their disclosure. To date, a
`confidentially maintained settlement agreement filed with the Board has
`never been disclosed to a third party. In the rare event that the Board were to
`consider granting a request by a third party (not a Federal Government
`agency), the Board will notify the parties to the agreement and will provide
`an opportunity to respond to the request.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`motion to expunge Exhibit 2002 is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00598
`Patent 7,231,379 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`James M. Heintz
`Alireza Babaei
`DLA PIPER LLP
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`alireza.babaei@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Isaac Rabicoff
`RABICOFF LAW
`isaac@rabilaw.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
