`
`Filed on behalf of Clearlamp, LLC
`By:
`
`Matthew L. Cutler (mcutler@hdp.com)
`
`
`Bryan K. Wheelock (bwheelock@hdp.com)
`
`
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`
`
`7700 Bonhomme, Suite 400
`
`
`St. Louis, MO 63105
`
`
`Tel: (314) 726-7500
`
`
`Fax: (314) 726-7501
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CLEARLAMP, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`_____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE
`ORDER AND TO SEAL UNDER 37 C.F.R. 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s June 28, 2013 Order (Paper 32), and for the reasons
`
`
`
`
`discussed more fully below, Patent Owner Clearlamp, LLC (hereinafter, “Patent
`
`Owner” or “Clearlamp”) respectfully submits this Motion to Seal the following
`
`documents:
`
`(1) portions of the transcript of the deposition of Robert Sandau (Ex. 2016);
`
`(2) an LKQ document entitled “LKQ Corporation Analysis of Income as a
`
`percentage of revenue”, bearing Bates Number LKQ0004213 (Ex.
`
`2011);
`
`(3) LKQ’s verified Supplemental Response to Clearlamp’s Interrogatory No.
`
`1 in the underlying District Court litigation (Ex. 2006); and
`
`(4) the claim chart accompanying Clearlamp’s infringement contentions in
`
`the underlying litigation (Ex. 2018).
`
`Because these documents are discussed in (5) portions of its Patent Owner’s
`
`Response and (6) portions of the Declaration of Mr. Irving S. Rappaport (Ex.
`
`2009), Clearlamp also moves to seal full versions of those documents.
`
`Additionally, Clearlamp also requests that the full version of a testing document,
`
`specifically (7) Exh. 2012 (American Bumper test package) also be sealed because
`
`it contains confidential information concerning General Motors’ lamp testing
`
`protocols.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`Each of these documents are filed concurrently with this Motion. Patent
`
`
`
`Owner Clearlamp is also filing redacted public versions of the Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, Rappaport Declaration, Sandau deposition transcript, and American
`
`Bumper Test Package.
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Confidential Information
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “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.” 77 FED. REG. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, those 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.” Id.
`
`(citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.54).
`
`Each of the exhibits summarized in Table 1 below (the “Proposed Sealed
`
`Exhibits”) contains either information that LKQ maintains is sensitive and
`
`confidential business technical, financial, and/or strategy information of Petitioner,
`
`or information that concerns third parties’ (General Motors and Volvo)
`
`confidential vehicle lamp testing processes.
`
`The Proposed Sealed Exhibits are discussed in detail in, and portions of
`
`them are reproduced in, Patent Owner’s Responses and Mr. Rappaport’s
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`Declaration. Thus, the relevant portions of Patent Owner’s Responses and Mr.
`
`
`
`Rappaport’s Declaration (Ex. 2009) should be sealed for the same reasons
`
`enumerated in Table 1 below. Contemporaneously with this motion, Clearlamp is
`
`filing redacted, public versions of its Response and Mr. Rappaport’s Declaration;
`
`those versions mask the confidential information subject to this Motion.
`
`Exh.
`Nos.
`
`2016
`
`TABLE 1 – Proposed Sealed Exhibits
`
`Summary of Contents
`
`Good Cause for Filing Under Seal
`
`Portions of the transcript
`
`Per LKQ, this documents contains a non-
`
`from the Deposition of
`
`public discussion of LKQ’s confidential
`
`Robert Sandau (22:3-17;
`
`business activities and strategies
`
`24:13-25:10; 28:5-14;
`
`concerning the portion of its business
`
`33:22-25; 34:16-19; 34:21;
`
`that is directed to refurbishing vehicle
`
`34:23-35:9; 35:11-12;
`
`lamps and offering those lamps for sale.
`
`35:14; 35:16-21; 35:24-
`
`This information was also designated as
`
`36:7; 36:9-19; 36:22-37:2;
`
`confidential under the Protective Order
`
`37:9-13; 37:15-38:2; 38:5-
`
`entered by the district court in the
`
`7; 38:9-11; 38:16-17;
`
`underlying litigation. Further, with
`
`38:19-20; 41:10-13; 73:2-4)
`
`respect to Mr. Sandau’s deposition
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`statements regarding the personality of
`
`LKQ personnel (e.g., 41:10-13),
`
`Clearlamp understands that LKQ asserts
`
`those statements are personal
`
`confidential and have little relevance to
`
`the merits of any substantive issue, and
`
`that there would thus be no harm to the
`
`public’s interest in restricting access to
`
`statement's about someone’s personality
`
`2011
`
`LKQ0004213 (LKQ
`
`Per LKQ, this document contains non-
`
`Corporation Analysis of
`
`public, confidential financial information
`
`Income as a percentage of
`
`regarding LKQ’s revenues and income
`
`revenue”
`
`from its sales of refurbished vehicle
`
`lamps. This information was also
`
`designated as confidential under the
`
`Protective Order entered by the district
`
`court in the underlying litigation.
`
`2006
`
`LKQ’s September 20, 2012
`
`Per LKQ, this document contains
`
`verified Supplemental
`
`description of LKQ’s non-public,
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Clearlamp’s
`
`confidential detailed description of the
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`process by which it refurbishes vehicle
`
`lamps. This information was also
`
`designated as confidential under the
`
`Protective Order entered by the district
`
`court in the underlying litigation.
`
`2018 Claim chart accompanying
`
`This document reflects information
`
`Clearlamp’s infringement
`
`(screenshots and narrative) from an LKQ
`
`contentions in the
`
`video which shows the process LKQ
`
`underlying district court
`
`uses to refurbish lamps. Clearlamp is
`
`litigation
`
`informed by LKQ that this video is not
`
`publicly available and shows
`
`confidential information regarding
`
`LKQ’s lamp refurbishing process. The
`
`LKQ information reflected in this
`
`document was also designated as
`
`confidential under the Protective Order
`
`entered by the district court in the
`
`underlying litigation.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`2012 American Bumper test
`
`Pages 5–7 of Exh. 2012 describes
`
`
`
`package, entitled “SPO –
`
`“General Motors Engineering Standards”
`
`Headlamp Refinishing
`
`for “Thermal Cured Abrasion Resistant
`
`Project,” pp. 5–7
`
`Coatings for Lighting Applications.”
`
`General Motors has informed Clearlamp
`
`that this information is not publicly
`
`available, and is competitively sensitive
`
`insofar as it reveals GM’s internal
`
`standards for lamp coatings. Further,
`
`Clearlamp’s Patent Owner’s Response
`
`does not reflect these testing standards;
`
`rather, they provide background
`
`information concerning the data and
`
`testing that is relied on in Clearlamp’s
`
`Response.
`
`II. Certification of Non-Publication
`
`On behalf of Patent Owner, undersigned counsel certifies the information
`
`sought to be sealed by this Motion to Seal has not, to their knowledge and based on
`
`LKQ’s representations, been published or otherwise made public. Efforts to
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`maintain the confidentiality of this information have been undertaken by Patent
`
`
`
`Owner and Petitioner in a related district court proceeding between the parties in
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (C.A. No. 1:12-cv-
`
`02533 JHL).
`
`III. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54
`
`Patent Owner has in good faith conferred with Petitioner and has reached
`
`agreement with Petitioner as to the scope of the proposed Protective Order.
`
`IV. Proposed Protective Order
`
`The parties have agreed to a stipulated protective order, which Clearlamp
`
`respectfully requests be entered in place of the default protective order. A clean
`
`copy of the parties’ stipulated proposed protective order is attached as Exhibit
`
`2019. Further, Clearlamp appreciates the Board’s guidance during the June 26,
`
`2013 conference call and, further to that guidance, submits as Exhibit 2020 a
`
`redlined version of the parties’ stipulated order, which shows changes from the
`
`default protective order.
`
`As shown on the redlined version, the parties stipulated protective order is
`
`substantially similar to the default protective order. Specifically, there are only
`
`four substantive changes from the default protective order in the parties’ proposed
`
`order:
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`First: Paragraph two is amended to specify that confidential information is
`
`
`
`to be “marked ‘PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.’” Good cause exists for this
`
`amendment because, this will allow for further clarity in identifying who may
`
`receive confidential material as a part of this proceeding.
`
`Second: Paragraph 2 is amended such that the entry “Parties. Persons who
`
`are owners of a patent involved in the proceeding and other persons of are named
`
`parties to the proceeding” is deleted from the listing of who may receive
`
`confidential information under the protective order. The effect of this deletion is
`
`that employees and principals of Clearlamp and LKQ may not receive confidential
`
`information. This harmonizes the Protective Order with the Protective Order
`
`entered in the underlying litigation, which restrict party personnel from receiving
`
`material produced as “Highly Confidential” material in that litigation. “Highly
`
`Confidential” information is defined in the district court’s Protective Order as
`
`“information within the scope of Rule 26(c)(1)(G) that is current or future business
`
`or technical trade secrets and plans more sensitive or strategic than Confidential
`
`information, the disclosure of which is likely to significantly harm that person’s
`
`competitive position, or the disclosure of which would contravene an obligation of
`
`confidentiality to a third person or to a Court.”)
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the restriction equally affects both parties, who are represented by
`
`
`
`outside counsel in this proceeding. Clearlamp thus respectfully submits that good
`
`cause exists for this change.
`
`Third: Similarly, Paragraph 2 is further amended such that the entry “In
`
`house counsel: In house counsel of a party” is also deleted from Paragraph 2’s
`
`listing of who may receive confidential information. Like party personnel, the
`
`district court’s Protective Order restricts in-house counsel from receiving “Highly
`
`Confidential” material. Thus, like the change described in the preceding section,
`
`this change seeks to harmonize this proceeding’s Protective Order with the district
`
`court Protective Order. Accordingly, Clearlamp respectfully submits that good
`
`cause exists for this change.
`
`Fourth: Paragraph 2.B of the parties’ stipulated protective order (and the
`
`default protective order) requires Experts receiving confidential information to sign
`
`an acknowledgement that they are not a competitor to any part, or a consultant for,
`
`or employed by, such a competitor with respect to the subject matter of the
`
`proceeding. The parties’ stipulated protective order adds the following sentence to
`
`this provision: “Any expert who was previously disclosed according to the terms
`
`of the protective order the in the underlying litigation, Clearlamp, LLC v. LKQ
`
`Corp., Case No. 1:12-cv-02533 (N.D. Ill.) are not required to also sign the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`Acknowledgement.” The protective order in the underlying litigation includes
`
`
`
`procedures for how a party must identify its experts to the parties’ opponent, and
`
`also includes an undertaking. Those procedures and undertaking are substantially
`
`equivalent to the procedures and Acknowledgement in the default protective order.
`
`Thus, the parties’ proposal to except experts that were previously identified in their
`
`litigation from the disclosure and Acknowledgement requirements will result in
`
`efficiencies, in that it will remove the need for parties to exchange the required
`
`information twice (once in litigation, and once in this proceeding). Clearlamp
`
`respectfully submits that good cause exists for entering this change.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, Clearlamp requests that the parties’ stipulated Protective Order
`
`be entered in this proceeding in place of the default protective order, that Exhibits
`
`2011, 2006, and 2018 be sealed, and that the unredacted versions of Exhibits 2016,
`
`2009, 2012, and Patent Owner’s Response also be sealed.
`
`*********
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`/Matthew L. Cutler/
`MATTHEW L. CUTLER, Reg. No. 43574
`BRYAN K. WHEELOCK, Reg. No. 31441
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 400
`Clayton, MO 63105
`Telephone: (314) 726-7500
`Facsimile: (314) 726-7501
`mcutler@hdp.com
`bwheelock@hdp.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner,
`Clearlamp, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
` Patent 7,297,364
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`
`It is hereby certified that on this 1st day of July, 2013, a copy of the
`
`foregoing document was served via Electronic Mail upon the following:
`
`Alan L. Barry
`Jason Engel
`Benjamin E. Weed
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Phone: (312) 372-1121
`Fax: (312) 827-8000
`alan.barry@klgates.com
`jason.engel@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed@klgates.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LKQ Corporation
`
`
`/Matthew L. Cutler/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`61121387.1
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`