`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 61
`Entered: February 10, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CONOPCO, INC. dba UNILEVER,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300 B1
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300 B1
`
`
`
`
`Two motions are outstanding in this proceeding: (1) The parties’ Joint
`
`Motion to Enter Default Protective Order (Paper 34, “Jt. Mot.”); and (2)
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 47, “Pet. Mot.”). Neither of those motions is in
`
`condition for allowance. “A party may file a motion to seal, where the motion to
`
`seal contains a proposed protective order.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54 (a). “The Board
`
`may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing
`
`confidential information.” Id.
`
`Only one document filed in this proceeding is alleged to contain confidential
`
`information. Ex. 1036. As explained below, no showing of “good cause” to seal
`
`Exhibit 1036 is made by either party. No basis exists, therefore, for sealing that
`
`document, or entering a protective order, in this proceeding.
`
`Exhibit 1036 was filed by Petitioner and is an un-redacted deposition
`
`transcript of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Robert Y. Lochhead.1 Ex. 1036; Pet.
`
`Mot. 2. Petitioner moves to seal Exhibit 1036 because Patent Owner has
`
`designated information within that transcript as confidential, therefore, “Petitioner
`
`will defer to Patent Owner to justify its designation.” Pet. Mot. 2–3. Neither party
`
`directs us to justification in that regard. On this record, no showing of “good
`
`cause” to seal Exhibit 1036 is made by either party. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54 (a).
`
`Petitioner filed Exhibit 1036 in connection with its Reply. Paper 45.
`
`Petitioner did not file a redacted version of its Reply, and it appears to us that
`
`neither party relies on any allegedly confidential information reflected in
`
`Exhibit 1036. With this Order, we issue a Final Written Decision that does not
`
`refer to, or rely upon, Exhibit 1036.
`
`
`1 Concurrently with Exhibit 1036, Petitioner filed a redacted version of Dr.
`Lochhead’s deposition transcript, which is available to the public. Ex. 1037.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300 B1
`
`
`
`
`The parties are directed to confer to resolve whether it is necessary to
`
`maintain Exhibit 1036 in the record of this proceeding. The Board shall expunge
`
`Exhibit 1036 from the record unless, within five (5) business days of the date of
`
`this Order, a paper is filed (jointly or individually) that shows cause why that
`
`exhibit should not be expunged. Any paper authorized by this Order shall not
`
`exceed five (5) pages.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the parties are directed to confer as set forth in this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1036 shall be expunged from the record
`
`unless, within five (5) business days of the date of this Order, a paper is filed
`
`(jointly or individually) that shows cause why that exhibit should not be expunged;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that any paper authorized by this Order shall not
`
`exceed five (5) pages.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00509
`Patent 6,451,300 B1
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Joseph Meara
`Michael Houston
`Jeanne Gills
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`jmeara-PGP@foley.com
`mhouston@foley.com
`jmgills@foley.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`David Maiorana
`John V. Biernacki
`Michael Weinstein
`JONES DAY
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`trgoots@jonesday.com
`msweinstein@jonesday.com
`
`Steven Miller
`Carl Roof
`Angela Haughey
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`miller.sw@pg.com
`roof.cj@pg.com
`haughey.a@pg.com
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
