Paper No. __
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L.M. ERICSSON
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L.M. ERICSSON
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00601
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,215
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, Petitioner Broadcom Corporation
`
`(“Broadcom”) requests permission to seal:
`
`
`
`(1)
`
`the portion of Broadcom’s Opposition to Telefonaktiebolaget L.M.
`
`Ericsson’s (“Ericsson”) Motion for Additional Discovery (“Opposition”) that
`
`addresses Ericsson’s provisionally sealed Exhibit 2009;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`I.
`
`the Declaration
`
` (Exhibit 1007); and
`
`the portion of Broadcom’s Opposition that addresses Exhibit 1007.
`
`Ericsson’s Exhibit 2009 Is Provisionally Sealed
`
`Ericsson moved to seal Exhibit 2009 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, (Paper 11)
`
`which states that “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.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.14. Therefore, Exhibit 2009 is provisionally sealed, and remains
`
`sealed pending the outcome of the decision on Ericsson’s motion.
`
`
`
`As acknowledged in Ericsson’s motion to seal Exhibit 2009 (Paper 11):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`(Paper 11 at 1).
`
`
`
`Additionally, although Broadcom objected to Ericsson’s inclusion of Exhibit
`
`2009 in Ericsson’s Motion for Additional Discovery due to its highly confidential
`
`nature, Ericsson included
`
` in its Motion. (Paper 11 at 3).
`
`Broadcom does not in any way dispute the highly confidential nature of Exhibit
`
`2009.
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Exhibit 1007 Contains Confidential Information
`
`Exhibit 1007 contains confidential statements regarding Broadcom and the
`
`defendants in Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 10-cv-473
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (the “Texas Litigation”). This information is not publicly known, and
`
`should remain confidential.
`
`II. Broadcom’s Discussion of Exhibit 2009 and Exhibit 1007
`
`Constitutes Confidential Information and Should Be Sealed.
`
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in an
`
`inter partes review are open and available for access by the public, but a party may
`
`file a concurrent motion to seal documents as provided by 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Only
`
`“confidential information” is protected from public disclosure. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(7); Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). The Board will only grant a motion to seal for “good cause.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.54; IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 34 at 3.
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding Broadcom’s discussion of Exhibit 2009 in its opposition,
`
`Broadcom has good cause for seeking permission to place the portion of its
`
`Opposition that discusses Exhibit 2009 under seal. As an initial matter, since
`
`Exhibit 2009 is provisionally sealed, it logically follows that the portions of
`
`Broadcom’s Opposition that discuss Exhibit 2009 should also be sealed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding Exhibit 1007, Broadcom has good cause for requesting Exhibit
`
`1007 to be sealed because it contains confidential business information regarding
`
`Broadcom and the defendants in the Texas Litigation. As with Broadcom’s
`
`discussions regarding Exhibit 2009 in its Opposition, Broadcom requests that the
`
`portion of Broadcom’s Opposition that addresses Exhibit 1007 should also be
`
`sealed to maintain the confidentiality of the information in Exhibit 1007.
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, Broadcom respectfully requests permission to seal the portion of
`
`its Opposition that addresses Ericsson’s provisionally sealed Exhibit 2009, Exhibit
`
`1007, and the portion of its Opposition that addresses Exhibit 1007.
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Proposed Protective Order
`
`Broadcom proposes that the default protective order found in Appendix B of
`
`the Trial Practice Guide be entered.
`
`IV. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, Broadcom certifies that it conferred with
`
`Ericsson regarding the scope of the proposed protective order, and the parties agree
`
`to use the default protective order in Appendix B of the Trial Practice Guide.
`
`
`
`
`
` V. Conclusion
`
`Broadcom respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion to Seal
`
`because it has good cause to seal the confidential portions of its Opposition and
`
`Exhibit 1007.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 20, 2013.
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dominic E. Massa/
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`
`60 State St.
`
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on December 20, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing MOTION TO SEAL to be served via email on the attorneys
`
`identified in Ericsson’s Updated Mandatory Notice (Paper 8), whom consented to
`
`electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Email Address:
`Back-up Counsel:
`Email Address:
`
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`peter@leehayes.com
`J. Christopher Lynch
`chris@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 119713577v.1
`
`/Dominic E. Massa/
`Dominic E. Massa
`Registration No. 44,905
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
