`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 139
`Entered: March 3, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, TRADESTATION GROUP, INC.
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., TRADESTATION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and IBFX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Paper 69
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, Patent Owner filed two motions to seal
`the papers and exhibits indicated in the table below.1
`Motion.
`Papers to be Sealed
`Exhibits to be Sealed
`Paper 61
`Confidential Version of Motion for
`Exhibits 2143–2151,
`Additional Discovery (Paper 62)
`2154, and 2156–2158
`Confidential Version of Patent
`Confidential Versions
`Owner Response (Paper 70)
`of Exhibits 2169 and
`2172 and Exhibits
`2224, 2225, 2232,
`2247, 2270, 2286,
`2294, and 2295
`Patent Owner represents that Petitioner does not oppose the motions. Paper
`61, 2; Paper 69, 2.
`There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a
`covered business method review open to the public. Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in a covered business
`method review are open and available for access by the public; a party,
`however, may file a concurrent motion to seal (37 C.F.R. § 42.14). The
`standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. The party moving to seal bears the burden of proof in showing
`entitlement to the requested relief, and must explain why the information
`
`
`1 Patent Owner additionally filed a motion to seal the confidential version of
`its Motion for Supplemental Information and Supplemental Briefing (Paper
`94). Paper 96. Patent Owner also filed a motion to seal the confidential
`version of its Reply in Support of the Motion for Supplemental Information
`(Paper 98). Paper 99. Those confidential papers were expunged by our
`order dated September 1, 2016, and the corresponding motions to seal were
`dismissed. Paper 101, 8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`sought to be sealed constitutes confidential information. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.20(c).
`Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause to seal the papers and
`exhibits because they contain sensitive business information that would not
`otherwise be published or made available to the public. See, e.g., Paper 61,
`2–4. We agree. The information Patent Owner seeks to seal was not relied
`on in the Final Written Decision. As such, protecting the confidential
`information from public disclosure only minimally impacts the public’s
`interest in maintaining a complete file history. Further, Non-confidential
`information will be publically available because non-confidential versions of
`the papers have been filed. See, e.g., Paper 60 (redacted version of motion for
`additional discovery). As for the motion to seal the confidential version of its
`Patent Owner Response and related Exhibits, we note that the redactions to
`the Patent Owner Response are narrowly tailored (see Paper 71), redacted
`versions of Exhibits 2169 and 2172 are available to the public, and Exhibits
`2224, 2225, 2232, 2247, 2270, 2286, 2294, and 2295 contain information
`identified by Patent Owner and third parties as sensitive, non-public
`information, that a business would not make public. Paper 69, 2. None of the
`confidential information is discussed specifically in our Final Decision.
`A motion to seal is required to include a proposed protective order and
`a certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted
`to confer with the opposing party in an effort to come to an agreement as to
`the scope of the proposed protective order for this covered business method
`review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Patent Owner indicates that the parties have
`conferred and agree to entry of the default protective located at Office Trial
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix B).
`See, e.g., Paper 61, 5.
`Based on Patent Owner’s unopposed representations and the
`reasonably limited scope of the protection sought, we determine that good
`cause exists to grant the motions to seal. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`It is:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions to seal (Papers 61 and 69)
`are granted.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Robert Sokohl
`Lori Gordon
`Richard Bemben
`STERN, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`Rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`Lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`Rbemben-ptab@skgf.com
`
`John Phillips
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`CBM41919-0008CP1@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Erika H. Arner
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Kevin D. Rodkey
`Rachel L. Emsley
`Cory Bell
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRET & DUNNER, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`
`Michael D. Gannon
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.
`Jennifer Kurcz
`MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
`gannon@mbhb.com
`sigmond@mbhb.com
`kurcz@mbhb.com
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Jay Knobloch
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2015-00181
`Patent 7,676,411 B2
`
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`6
`
`