`
`
`
`Paper 44
`
`Filed on behalf of: CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`By: E. Robert Yoches, Reg. No. 30,120
`Darrel C. Karl, pro hac vice
`
`
`Aaron J. Capron, Reg. No. 56,170
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`
`Phone: (202) 408-4000
`
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent of FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`In its Decision dated May 28, 2013, the Board denied CRS’s Motion to Seal
`
`without prejudice, allowing CRS to file by June 5, 2013, a substitute motion to seal
`
`in compliance with its Decision. Responsive to the Decision and under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.14, Petitioner CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. (“CRS”) hereby requests
`
`that the Board enter the Proposed Protective Order (CRS Ex. 1019) and grant this
`
`Substitute Motion to Seal, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of the non-
`
`publicly available Reply (Paper 40) and two non-publicly available exhibits (Exs.
`
`1015 and 1016).
`
`II. The Proposed Protective Order
`The parties have jointly agreed to the Proposed Protective Order (CRS Ex.
`
`1019) and present it for the Board’s consideration.
`
`In its Decision, the Board requested that the parties identify the differences
`
`between the Proposed Protective Order and the Default Protective Order set forth
`
`in the Office Patent Trial Guide. Decision at 2. In response, Petitioner identifies
`
`the following differences:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Include sections entitled Definition of PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`MATERIAL, Prosecution Bar, and Miscellaneous Provisions; and
`
` Update the individuals who have access to PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL by further clarifying the definition of parties, party
`
`representatives, and experts.
`
`The parties have included these amendments to the Proposed Protective Order to
`
`ensure that confidential information is not disclosed to others outside of this
`
`proceeding in violation of a court-ordered protective order (CRS Ex. 1018).
`
`Employees of the Patent and Trademark Office who work with members of the
`
`Board are and were not intended by the parties to be excluded access from such
`
`information.
`
`Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Board enter the
`
`Proposed Protective Order.
`
`III. Statement of Facts Showing There is Good Cause for the Board to
`Allow the Filing Under Seal
`
`In accordance with Paragraph 5(a)(i) of the Protective Order (CRS Ex.
`
`1019), “[a] party may file documents or information with the Board under seal,
`
`together with a nonconfidential description of the nature of PROTECTIVE
`
`ORDER MATERIAL that is under seal and the reasons why the information is
`
`confidential and should not be made available to the public.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CRS’s Reply includes a reference to documents and information indicated
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`by Patent Owner as being PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL under the terms of
`
`the Proposed Protective Order. More specifically, CRS’s Reply and selected
`
`exhibits that were filed concurrently with the Reply involve a Frontline license
`
`agreement with a third party involving the patent at issue in this proceeding (CRS
`
`Ex. 1016) and excerpts of a confidential deposition transcript (CRS Ex. 1015) that
`
`addresses certain business-sensitive terms of the license agreement, both of which
`
`have been indicated by Patent Owner as being PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL under the proposed Protective Order.
`
`The Patent Owner maintains that the terms of the license agreement between
`
`it and the third party constitute confidential commercial business information
`
`pertinent to its company. The Patent Owner does not share its license agreements
`
`and the terms of those agreements with its competitors, including Petitioner CRS,
`
`let alone with the public at large. The license agreement was produced by
`
`Frontline to CRS’s counsel during the course of discovery in the pending district
`
`court action under the terms of the court-ordered protective order (CRS Ex. 1018).
`
`CRS’s counsel is thereby bound to take steps to maintain the confidentiality of the
`
`terms of that license agreement, although the parties have agreed that discovery
`
`obtained in the district court proceeding may be freely used in this proceeding
`
`provided that the confidentiality of such materials is maintained.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Based on the reasoning above, Petitioner CRS submits that the indication by
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`Patent Owner that these materials are PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL under
`
`the Proposed Protective Order constitutes good cause for the Board to allow the
`
`filing under seal pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner CRS respectfully requests that the
`
`Board enter the Proposed Protective Order (CRS Ex. 1019) and grant this motion,
`
`thereby maintaining the confidentiality of the non-publicly available Reply (Paper
`
`40) and two non-publicly available exhibits (Exs. 1015 and 1016) that were filed
`
`on May 20, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Aaron J. Capron
`E. Robert Yoches, Reg. No. 30,120
`Darrel C. Karl, pro hac vice
`Aaron J. Capron, Reg. No. 56,170
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
`Phone: (202) 408-4000
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc..
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of June, 2013, a true and correct copy of
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`the foregoing PETITIONER CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`
`SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL was served, in
`
`accordance with the parties’ electronic service agreement, by electronic mail upon
`
`the following lead and backup counsel of record for Patent Owner Frontline
`
`Technologies, Inc.:
`
`John P. Donohue, Jr., Lead Counsel
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`Cira Centre – 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: 215.568.3100
`Fax: 215.568.3439
`Email: donohue@woodcock.com
`
`John E. McGlynn, Back-up Counsel
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`Cira Centre – 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104
`Phone: 215.564.8382
`Fax: 215.568.3439
`Email: mcglynn@woodcock.com
`
`R. Scott Tewes
`Tewes Law Group LLC
`Sugarloaf Corporate Center
`2180 Satellite Blvd., Suite 400
`Duluth, GA 30097
`STewes@TewesLaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`
`Patent 6,675,151C1
`
`
`
`/s/ Jacob Mersing
`Jacob Mersing
`Legal Assistant
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`8
`
`