`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 33
`
`Entered: December 14, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2012-00001 (MPT)
`Patent 6,553,350
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Lead Administrative Patent Judge, and SALLY
`C. MEDLEY and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION – VERSATA Motion – 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`On November 30, 2012, Versata filed a motion to file certain documents
`
`under seal. (Paper 28). In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, Versata identifies
`
`its Patent Owner Preliminary Response along with certain exhibits to be sealed.
`
`The parties filed subsequent papers essentially agreeing that the Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00001
`Patent 6,553,350
`
`Preliminary Response need not be sealed, but that Versata Exhibits 2045, 2046 and
`
`2047 be maintained under seal in their entirety. (Papers 31 and 32).
`
`Upon consideration of Versata Motion to Seal, and the subsequent papers
`
`filed by the parties regarding the matter, the Board has determined that Versata has
`
`sufficiently demonstrated why Versata Exhibits 2045, 2046 and 2047 should
`
`remain sealed in their entirety. Accordingly, it is
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Versata Motion to Seal is GRANTED-IN-PART;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Versata Preliminary Response shall be made
`
`publicly available; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Versata Exhibits 2045, 2046 and 2047 remain
`
`sealed in their entirety.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Erika Arner
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P
`SAP-PGR@finnegan.com
`and
`Michael L. Kiklis
`Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt LLP
`CPdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nick J. Linck & Martin M. Zoltick
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`nlinck@rfem.com
`VERSATA-PGR@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`