`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: October 19, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal; Entering Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`On June 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. Paper 37 (“Petitioner’s Motion”). Petitioner’s Motion asks us to
`seal portions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 38), and Exhibit 1034. Paper 37, 1. Petitioner’s Motion also
`asks us to enter a Proposed Stipulated Protective Order submitted by the
`parties as Exhibit 1035. Paper 37, 1.
`On June 14, 2021, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Paper 42 (“Patent Owner’s Motion”). Patent Owner’s
`Motion asks us to seal portions of Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its
`Motion to Exclude (Paper 43). Paper 42, 1.
`We determine that the parties have sufficiently identified how their
`Proposed Stipulated Protective Order departs from the Board’s Default
`Protective Order by submitting a marked-up comparison between those two
`documents. See Paper 13, 3; Ex. 1036. Upon review of the Motions, we
`determine that the parties have shown good cause for the proposed
`modifications to the Board’s Default Protective Order, with the following
`two clarifications: (1) Paragraph 2 of the Proposed Stipulated Protective
`Order shall not be construed to permit the parties to agree to limit the access
`of employees and representatives of the Office to protective order materials,
`and (2) the requirements of Paragraph 2(D) of the Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order shall not apply to support personnel, administrative
`assistants, clerical staff, court reporters, or other support personnel of
`employees or representatives of the Office.
`We further find that Exhibit 1034 contains confidential information of
`Patent Owner and is appropriately filed under seal. We additionally find that
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 38) and
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude (Paper 43) both
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`contain confidential information from Exhibit 1034, that the parties have
`filed public, redacted versions of both documents (Papers 39 and 44), and
`that the redactions in the publicly available versions are appropriate.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion (Paper 37) and Patent Owner’s
`Motion (Paper 42) are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
`(Exhibit 1035) is entered with the following two clarifications:
`(1) Paragraph 2 of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order shall not be
`construed to permit the parties to agree to limit the access of employees and
`representatives of the Office to protective order materials, and (2) the
`requirements of Paragraph 2(D) of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
`shall not apply to support personnel, administrative assistants, clerical staff,
`court reporters, or other support personnel of employees or representatives
`of the Office; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1034, Paper 38, and Paper 43
`shall remain under seal in the Board’s filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Eric Raciti
`Arpita Bhattacharyya
`Marta Garcia Daneshvar
`FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`Eric.raciti@finnegan.com
`Arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`Marta.garcia@finnegan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lloyd Pollard
`Bradley Ganz
`GANZ POLLARD LLC
`lloyd@ganzlaw.com
`brad@ganzlaw.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
