Paper: 56
`Entered: February 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`Entered: February 12, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479, -00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`On February 6, 2015, in each of IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479,
`IPR2013-00480, and IPR2013-00481, within the time set in the Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (Paper
`58), Patent Owner requested that its Motion to Seal Exhibit 2114 dated May
`19, 2014 (Paper 35) be withdrawn and the confidential version of Exhibit
`2114 be expunged from the record and replaced with a redacted version that
`has the confidential information removed. Paper 59.1 Also, on February 6,
`2015, Patent Owner submitted a redacted version of the Declaration of Dr.
`Amy Langville (“Langville Declaration”) as Exhibit 2114. Patent Owner’s
`request is unopposed.
`Additionally, Patent Owner requested Petitioner’s Motion to Seal the
`Transcript of Dr. Amy N. Langville (“Langville Transcript”) dated
`September 5, 2014 (Paper 42) be withdrawn and the confidential version of
`the Langville Transcript be expunged from the record and replaced with a
`redacted version that has the confidential information removed. On
`February 6, 2015, Patent Owner submitted what Patent Owner asserts is a
`redacted version of the Langville Transcript, filed as Exhibit 1034, Exhibit
`1236, and Exhibit 1033 in IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479, and IPR2013-
`00481, respectively. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s request to file the
`redacted version of the Langville Transcript.
`Patent Owner’s requests that (1) its Motion to Seal Exhibit 2114 be
`withdrawn and (2) we expunge the confidential version of Exhibit 2114
`(Paper 35) comply sufficiently with the guidance we provided in our Final
`Written Decision (Paper 58). We note that the confidential and redacted
`
`1 For expediency, IPR2014-00478 is representative and all subsequent
`citations are to IPR2014-00478 unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479, -00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`versions in each of IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479, IPR2013-00480, and
`IPR2013-00481 use the same Exhibit No. 2114. Accordingly, only the
`confidential versions of the Langville Declaration, filed as Exhibit 2114 on
`May 19, 2014 or May 20, 2014 in each of IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479,
`IPR2013-00480, and IPR2013-00481 are expunged.
`Regarding the Langville Transcript, the redactions in Patent Owner’s
`redacted version do not effectively shield information from public view
`because the words underneath the redactions are visible. Accordingly, we
`expunge the redacted versions of the Langville Transcript filed on February
`6, 2015 as Exhibit 1034, Exhibit 1236, and Exhibit 1033 in IPR2013-00478,
`IPR2013-00479, and IPR2013-00481, respectively. Additionally, Patent
`Owner cannot withdraw Petitioner’s motion to seal.
`In the Final Written Decision, we ordered that Exhibit 1034 will be
`made available to the public after 5 PM Eastern five business days after the
`entry date of this decision, unless prior to that time, Petitioner (1) withdraws
`the motion to seal and requests that we expunge Exhibit 1034, or
`(2) withdraws the motion to seal, requests that we expunge Exhibit 1034,
`and replaces it with a redacted version that leaves out the confidential
`information. Paper 59. Although Petitioner filed a motion to seal the
`Langville Transcript, Petitioner now opposes Patent Owner’s redactions and
`has taken no further action to protect information Petitioner contended
`should be sealed.
`Patent Owner did not file a motion to seal the Langville Transcript,
`instead relying on Petitioner’s unsupported motion (Paper 42). The record
`of a proceeding, including documents and things, shall be made available to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479, -00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`the public unless otherwise ordered and “[a] party intending a document or
`thing to be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the filing of the
`document or thing to be sealed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Additionally, in its
`recent submission, Patent Owner did not explain why the redacted material
`in the Langville Transcript should be protected as confidential. Paper 59.
`As a result, although the Langville Transcript was filed by Petitioner
`in September 2014 and has been part of the record for several months,
`neither party has provided persuasive argument as to why any information in
`the Langville Transcript is confidential, and Patent Owner’s redacted version
`is the first indication that has been submitted as to what information is
`purportedly confidential. In light of Patent Owner’s attempt to file a
`redacted version, we will allow five additional days for Patent Owner to
`obtain an agreement from Petitioner regarding redactions. Nonetheless,
`because the record does not have a submission by either party that satisfies
`the burden of demonstrating that information in the Langville Transcript is
`confidential, if no agreement is reached, as we indicated in our Final Written
`Decision, the Langville Transcript will become public.
`
`
`Order
`
`It is
`ORDERED that only the confidential versions of the Declaration of
`Dr. Amy Langville, filed as Exhibit 2114 on May 19, 2014 or May 20, 2014
`in each of IPR2014-00478, IPR2014-00479, IPR2014-00480, and IPR2014-
`00481 are expunged and Patent Owner’s motion to seal Exhibit 2114 is
`withdrawn;
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479, -00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the redacted versions of the Transcript of
`Dr. Amy N. Langville, filed as Exhibit 1034, Exhibit 1236, and Exhibit 1033
`in IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479, and IPR2013-00481, respectively, are
`expunged; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1034, Exhibit 1236, and Exhibit
`1033 in IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479, and IPR2013-00481, respectively
`will be made available to the public after 5 PM Eastern five business days
`after the entry date of this decision, unless prior to that time, Petitioner and
`Patent Owner jointly file unopposed redacted versions of Exhibit 1034,
`Exhibit 1236, and Exhibit 1033 in each of IPR2013-00478, IPR2013-00479,
`and IPR2013-00481, respectively.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479, -00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY, LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`dcpatentdocketing@cooley.com
`
`David Silbert
`KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
`djs@kvn.com
`efiling@kvn.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Martin M. Zoltick
`Nancy J. Linck
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`mzoltick@rfem.com
`nlinck@rfem.com
`SRA-IPR@rfem.com
`
`6
`
`
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
