`
` Filed: June 27, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`_________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Patent Owner requests that the confidential versions of its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, Exhibits 2172 (Declaration of J. Knobloch), 2169 (Declaration of C.
`
`Thomas), and eight exhibits to the Declaration of C. Thomas, i.e., Exhibits 2224;
`
`2225; 2232; 2247; 2270; 2286; 2294; 2295 be sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`Good cause to seal these documents exists because a public version of the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response and Declarations have also been filed, and because the
`
`unredacted Patent Owner’s Response, unredacted Declarations (Exhibits 2172 and
`
`2169), 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. Patent Owners contacted
`
`Petitioners regarding this Motion, and they do not oppose.
`
`II. Governing Rules and PTAB Guidance
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in a post-
`
`grant review are open and available for access by the public, but a party may file a
`
`concurrent motion to seal and the information at issue is sealed pending the
`
`outcome of the motion.
`
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 provides:
`
`The record of a proceeding, including documents and things,
`shall be made available to the public, except as otherwise
`ordered. A party intending a document or thing to be sealed
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`
`
`shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the filing of the
`document or thing to be sealed. The document or thing shall
`be provisionally sealed on receipt of the motion and remain so
`pending the outcome of the decision on the motion.
`It is, however, only “confidential information” that is protected from disclosure. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 326(a)(7)(“The Director shall prescribe regulations -- . . . providing for
`
`protective orders governing the exchange and submission of confidential
`
`information”). In that regard, the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756,
`
`48760 (Aug. 14, 2012) provides:
`
`The rules aim to strike a balance between the public’s interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history and
`the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive information.
`* * *
`Confidential Information: The rules identify confidential
`information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders
`for trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
`commercial information. § 42.54.
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause,” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54, and the moving party has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to
`
`the requested relief, 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`A motion to seal is also required to include a proposed protective order and a
`
`certification that the moving party has in good faith conferred or attempted to
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`confer with the opposing party in an effort to come to an agreement as to the scope
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`of the proposed protective order for this CBM review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Confidential Information
`
`The confidential information consists of:
`
`(1) Trading Technologies International, Inc.’s internal financial information
`
`appearing in the Declaration of J. Knobloch, Ex. 2172, who currently serves as the
`
`Director of Intellectual Property, Licensing and Litigation, and relating to the
`
`amount of money derived from royalty and settlement payments. See Exhibit 2172,
`
`¶ 11. In total, the confidential material is less than 1 line of printed text in the six
`
`page Declaration of J. Knobloch. The surrounding text makes clear that royalty and
`
`settlement payments are discussed, with only the dollar amount redacted. Patent
`
`Owner certifies that its detailed royalty information has not been published or
`
`otherwise been made public.
`
`(2) Other third-party business strategy information and third-party
`
`admissions/statements appearing in the Declaration of J. Knobloch, ¶ 9. In total,
`
`the confidential material is less than 3 lines of printed text in the six page
`
`Declaration of J. Knobloch. The surrounding text makes clear that two specifically
`
`named individuals, third parties Raymond Deux and Goldenberg Hehmeyer, made
`
`business sensitive statements in the context of a passage on licensing TT products.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`To Patent Owner’s knowledge, this business strategy information has not, and
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`should not, be made public.
`
`(3) Third-party business strategy information and third-party
`
`admissions/statements appearing in the Declaration of C. Thomas, Ex. 2169,
`
`¶¶ 127-28. The surrounding text makes clear that two specifically named
`
`individuals, third parties Raymond Deux and Charles McElveen, made sensitive
`
`business statements in the context of competitive analysis. In total, it is less than 7
`
`lines of printed text in the 153 page Declaration of C. Thomas. To Patent Owner’s
`
`knowledge, this business strategy information has not, and should not, be made
`
`public.
`
`(4) Eight exhibits attached to the Declaration of C. Thomas which are
`
`confidential third-party materials in their entirety, containing business strategy
`
`information and confidential admissions/statements (i.e., Exhibits 2224 (excerpts
`
`of district court Deposition Transcript of D. Martin marked “Highly
`
`Confidential”); 2225 (excepts of district court Deposition Transcript of C.
`
`McElveen marked as containing “Confidential Material”); 2232 (excerpts of
`
`district court Deposition Transcript of E. Lapan marked as “Highly Confidential”);
`
`2247 (excerpts of district court Deposition Transcript of R. Deux marked as
`
`“Confidential Videotape Deposition”); 2270 (eSpeed_PTX0036 (district court trial
`
`exhibit marked “Highly Confidential”)); 2286 (excerpts of district court Deposition
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Transcript of N. Garrow marked “Confidential”); 2294 (excerpts of district court
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Deposition Transcript of J. Mellor marked “Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only”);
`
`2295 (excerpts of district court Deposition Transcript of R. Ferraro vol. II marked
`
`“Confidential”). All but one of these, an e-mail chain used as a (sealed) trial
`
`exhibit, are deposition transcripts from various litigations, designated with
`
`confidentiality legends. To Patent Owner’s knowledge, these transcripts and emails
`
`have not, and should not, be made public.
`
`(5) Use of the confidential information noted above in items (1)-(4) in two
`
`paragraphs of Patent Owner’s Response. In total, the confidential material is less
`
`than 8 lines of printed text in the entire Patent Owner’s Response.
`
`IV. Good Cause Exists for Sealing the Confidential Information
`In Laird Tech. v Graftech Intl. Holdings, the Board found that royalty
`
`
`
`information that has not been published or otherwise been made public “is
`
`sensitive financial information that a business would not make public” and
`
`establishes good cause for granting a motion to seal. IPR2014-00023, paper 30;
`
`IPR2014-00024, paper 28; IPR2014-00025, paper 27 at 4 (PTAB 2014). The facts
`
`are the same here—redacted information in Exhibit 2172 ¶ 11 consists of royalty
`
`information that has not been published or otherwise been made public and that is
`
`sensitive financial information that a business would not make public. Moreover,
`
`all of the nonconfidential information will be publically available in the non-
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`confidential versions of the documents that have been filed. Accordingly, there is
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`good cause to grant this motion to seal.
`
`In Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.,
`
`IPR2013-00167, paper 25 at 2 (PTAB 2013), the Board permitted Patent Owner to
`
`file redacted versions of exhibits that third parties had objected to entering the
`
`public domain because they contained their confidential information. The Board
`
`stated that as long as the documents were under seal, “we see no reason why the
`
`entirety of these documents, which are being relied on by Patent Owner, should not
`
`be available for Petitioner to use in these proceedings.” Id. Accordingly, the Board
`
`permitted the third-party exhibit to be sealed, shielding the information from the
`
`public while still making it available to the parties under the terms of a PO. In this
`
`case, the third parties have also objected to the release of the their confidential
`
`business information into the public domain. The information of third parties in
`
`part in Exhibits 2172, ¶ 9, 2169, ¶¶ 127-28 and in the entirety of Exhibits 2224;
`
`2225; 2232; 2247; 2270; 2286; 2294; and 2295 is confidential business strategy
`
`information and/or testimony that has not been published or otherwise been made
`
`public and that is sensitive information that a business would not make public. As
`
`Petitioners have signed acknowledgements to the Default Protective Order, all
`
`parties to the proceedings―Patent Owner and Petitioners―will still be able to rely
`
`on these third party statements and exhibits in their entirety, while respecting the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`confidentiality designations of the third parties through a motion to seal.
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`Accordingly, there is good cause to grant this motion to seal.
`
`V.
`
`Proposed Protective Order
`
`The parties have signed acknowledgements for the Default Protective Order
`
`located in Appendix B of the Trial Practice Guide, indicating agreement to treat the
`
`materials in accordance with the Default Protective Order. In accordance with the
`
`terms of the Default Protective Order, both confidential and non-confidential
`
`versions of the documents have been filed.
`
`VI. Conclusion
`Based on Patent Owner’s representations and the limited scope of the
`
`protection sought, there is good cause to grant the motion to seal. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.54. For all the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Rachel L. Emsley/
`Rachel L. Emsley, Reg. No. 63,558
`
`the Board grant this motion to seal.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 27, 2016
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case CBM2015-00182
`U.S. Patent 6,772,132
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Motion to Seal was served on June 27, 2016, via email directed to
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Robert Sokohl
`rsokohl-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Richard Bemben
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`John C. Phillips
`CBM41919-0006CP1@fr.com
`
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Date: June 27, 2016
`
`
`
`/Lisa C. Hines/
`Lisa C. Hines
`Litigation Clerk
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
`& Dunner, LLP
`
`
`9