`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 35
`Date: May 28, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner,
`v.
`IDEAHUB INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00702
`Patent 9,641,849 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`Decision
`Granting Entry of Protective Order and Motions to Seal
` 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00702
`Patent 9,641,849 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) moves for entry of a
`Protective Order agreed upon by the parties, attached to Petitioner’s motion
`as Exhibit 1015. Paper 21. The parties’ proposed Protective Order differs
`from the Board’s default protective order in one primary respect, in that it
`“prohibits in-house counsel or other party employees from accessing certain
`classes of confidential information – designated HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Id. at 1. Petitioner
`also filed unopposed motions to seal Exhibits 2004–2009, Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 17), and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 25) pursuant to the
`proposed Protective Order, and has submitted redacted versions of those
`documents. Paper 20 (Unopposed Motion to Seal); Paper 27 (Unopposed
`Second Motion to Seal).
`
`DISCUSSION
`A party seeking to protect confidential information may seek entry of
`a protective order in a proceeding before the Board. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v.
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 34 (PTAB Mar 14, 2013).
`Upon a showing of good cause, the Board may enter a Protective Order to
`protect from public disclosure such confidential information as disclosed by
`a party during the course of a proceeding before the Board. 37 CFR § 42.54.
`Petitioner asserts that the modifications to the Board’s default protective
`order are necessary and good cause exists to enter the parties’ agreed-upon
`proposed Protective Order. Paper 21, 1. Petitioner’s unopposed motion
`describes the confidential business information contained in the documents
`subject to its motions, why disclosure beyond the proposed Protective Order
`could harm its business, and why the narrow proposed changes to the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00702
`Patent 9,641,849 B2
`
`Board’s default protective order are needed. Id. Petitioner further notes that
`the proposed changes to the Protective Order do not affect access by
`employees and representatives of the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office. Id. at 2.
`We determine that good cause exists for entering the proposed
`Protective Order (Exhibit 1015) in this proceeding.
`Regarding the motions to seal, a movant must demonstrate “good
`cause” for sealing the documents, and must “strike a balance between the
`public’s interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history
`and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive information.” Garmin v.
`Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Apr. 5, 2013) (Paper 36). Good cause is
`established by demonstrating that the balance of the following
`considerations favors sealing the material: whether (1) the information
`sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would result
`upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on
`the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4), on balance, an interest
`in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having
`an open record. See Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (informative), at 4; see also
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00440 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2015) (Paper 47), at 3.
`We are persuaded by Petitioner’s unopposed motions (Papers 20 and
`27) that the foregoing factors, on balance, weigh in favor of sealing the
`proposed documents. For example, we determine that the redactions made
`to the public versions are reasonable and necessary based on the above
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00702
`Patent 9,641,849 B2
`
`factors. We are also persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause
`for sealing the proposed documents.
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Protective Order (Paper 21) is
`granted and that the parties’ proposed Protective Order (Exhibit 1015) is
`placed into effect;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`(Paper 20) is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Second Unopposed Motion
`to Seal (Paper 27) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00702
`Patent 9,641,849 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Raghav Bajaj
`David McCombs
`Jonathan Bowser
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jon.bowser.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Roshan Mansinghani
`Ashraf Fawzy
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`Fadi Kiblawi
`John F. Rabena
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`jrabena@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
