`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
