PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`ERIC Y. ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. PGR2020-00046
`Patent 10,328,347
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`ERIC Y. ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. PGR2020-00046
`Patent 10,328,347
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................... 1
`II.
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR EXPUNGING THE
`CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT ................................................................... 2
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 97 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015) ........................................... 2
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56 ................................................................................................... 1, 3
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 ............................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,328,347 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,328,347
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594 to Eda
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 9,597,594
`
`The History of Chess, From the Time of the Early Inventions
`of the Game in India, till the Period of its Establishment in Western
`and Central Europe, Duncan Forbes, LL.D. (Wm. H. Allen & Co.
`1860) (selected pages)
`
`Correspondence Chess in America, Bryce C. Avery (2000)
`(selected pages)
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`Declaration of Mark L. Claypool, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae for Mark Claypool
`
`Declaration of Antti Takala Regarding Clash of Clans Version 4.120
`(“Clash”)
`
`Declaration of Sean Olesiuk [Mastermind’s In-Game Builder Idea
`(with LOADS of pictures!) (“Mastermind”)]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,079,105 to Jeong Hun Kim et al. (“Kim”)
`
`Gratuitous Space Battles Manual, Version 1.1, and related links
`(“GSB”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0105626 to Cho et al. (“Cho”)
`
`Review of Clash of Clans by PocketGamer
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Declaration of Christopher Butler and associated Internet Archive
`materials
`
`Eastern District of Texas Standing Order Regarding the Novel
`Coronavirus (COVID-19)
`
`Eastern District of Texas General Order 20-03
`
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered on
`May 14, 2020, Case Nos. 19-cv-00071, 19-cv-00161,
`19-cv-00200, and 19-cv-00237 (E.D. Texas)
`
`Scott McKeown, Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB Discretionary
`Denials, Patents Post-Grant (June 30, 2020)
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24, 2020)
`
`Declaration of Umeya
`
`Third Docket Control Order, entered July 28, 2020, Case Nos.
`19-cv-000161, 19-cv-00172, 19-cv-00200, and 19-cv-000237
`(E.D. Texas)
`
`Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Relief re
`Governmental Restrictions re COVID-19 (19-00161), Dkt. 102
`
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Mark Claypool Regarding
`Mastermind Exhibit
`
`Clash of Clans Internal Release Notes
`
`Evidence Corroborating Clash
`
`Fourth Amended Document Control Order, entered August 21, 2020
`[Dkt. 126] Civil Case No. 19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Amended Docket Control Order, entered October 7, 2020 [Dkt 131]
`Civil Case No. 19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Memorandum Order entered on September 24, 2020, Case No. 2:19-
`cv-00237-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Order entered on November 20, 2020, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung
`Display Co., Ltd., [Dkt 302], Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that certain confidential information in the
`
`record be expunged. This motion is authorized by the Board’s October 5, 2020
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review, Granting Petitioner’s Motion
`
`to Seal (Paper 13). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner respectfully requests
`
`that certain papers and documents be expunged.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests that Exhibit 1026 (Supercell’s Clash of
`
`Clans Internal Release notes for release version 4.120), for which a Motion to Seal
`
`was filed on August 3, 2020 as Paper 8, be expunged from the record, as this
`
`document contains Petitioner’s highly confidential business information.1
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`37 CFR § 42.56 provides that following “denial of a petition to institute a
`
`trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge
`
`confidential information from the record.” The Trial Practice Guide states that
`
`“[t]here is an expectation that information will be made public where the existence
`
`of the information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute
`
`1 Petitioner filed and was granted a parallel Motion to Expunge Confidential
`
`Document for this confidential exhibit in PGR2020-00041, PGR2020-00039, and
`
`PGR2020-00038.
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`a review or is identified in a final written decision following a trial.” Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761. However, the Trial Practice Guide also states that a
`
`party “seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information . . . may file a motion
`
`to expunge the information from the record prior to the information becoming
`
`public.” A party seeking expungement from the record must show good cause by
`
`demonstrating “that any information sought to be expunged constitutes confidential
`
`information, and that Petitioner’s interest in expunging it outweighs the public’s
`
`interest in maintaining a complete and understandable history of this inter partes
`
`review.” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00453, Paper 97 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015).
`
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR EXPUNGING THE CONFIDENTIAL
`DOCUMENT
`In this proceeding, the Board entered its Decision Denying Institution of
`
`Post-Grant Review and Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Seal [Paper l3],
`
`authorizing Petitioner to file a motion to expunge Exhibit 1026 within 90 days after
`
`the date of entry of [the Board’s] Decision. (Petitioner filed a Request for
`
`Rehearing on November 4, 2020 [Paper 15], which extended the tolling of the
`
`Motion to Expunge.)
`
`As set forth in the Motion to Seal (Paper 8), the document contains
`
`Petitioner’s confidential and highly sensitive business confidential information,
`
`disclosure of which would adversely harm Petitioner, while expungement of which
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`would not significantly impact the public’s interest in maintaining a complete and
`
`understandable file history. Expunging Exhibit 1026 also protects a sensitive
`
`District Court Litigation document served by GREE, Inc.
`
`To the best of Petitioner’s knowledge, Exhibit 1026 has never been
`
`published or otherwise made public. Patent Owner and Petitioner made efforts to
`
`maintain the confidentiality of this information in the Civil Action. In the Civil
`
`Action, Exhibit 1026 was produced pursuant to a Protective Order agreed upon by
`
`the Parties, and was designated “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY”
`
`pursuant to that Protective Order.
`
`Additionally, the Board did not rely on Exhibit 1026 in its denial of
`
`institution in this proceeding. See Paper 13 (discretional denial under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 324(a)). Thus, there is no public interest in now making Petitioner’s confidential
`
`information publicly available.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to expunge the confidential document.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board protect
`
`Petitioner’s highly confidential business information and expunge the confidential
`
`document pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`Respectfully submitted,
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush /
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2020-00046
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`(37 CFR §42.205)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion to
`
`Expunge Confidential Document was served on Patent Owner’s lead and back-
`
`up counsel in its entirety by electronic service at the email addresses provided
`
`below:
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Joshua H. Lee
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`Jennifer R. Bush /
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street,
`Mountain View CA 94041
`
`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
