throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 130
`Entered: February 28, 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 CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Paper 60
`
`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 52
`Confidential Version of Motion for
`Exhibits 2143–2151,
`Additional Discovery (Paper 53)
`2154, and 2156–2158
`Confidential Version of Patent
`Confidential Versions
`Owner Response (Paper 53)
`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
`52, 2; Paper 60, 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
`85). Paper 87. Patent Owner also filed a motion to seal the confidential
`version of its Reply in Support of the Motion for Supplemental Information
`(Paper 90). Paper 89. Those confidential papers were expunged by our
`order dated September 1, 2016, and the corresponding motions to seal were
`dismissed. Paper 93, 8.
`
`2
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`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 52,
`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 51 (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 67), 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 60, 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
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Appendix B).
`See, e.g., Paper 52, 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 52 and 60)
`are granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert E. Sokohl
`Lori A. Gordon
`Richard M. Bemben
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`PTAB@skgf.com
`rsokohl-ptab@skgf.com
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`John Phillips
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`CBM41919-0006CP1@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Erika H. Arner
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Kevin Rodkey
`Rachel L. Emsley
`Cory Bell
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`erika.arner@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`kevin.rodkey@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`cody.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
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CBM2015-00182
`Patent 6,772,132 B1
`
`
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Jay Knobloch
`Trading Technologies International, INC.
`tt-patent-cbm@tradingtechnologies.com
`jay.knobloch@tradingtechnologies.com
`
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket