`
`Filed on behalf of: Telefonaktiebolaget L. M. Ericsson
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`BROADCOM CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L.M. ERICSSON
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00602
`Patent 6,466,568
`____________________
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`Patent Owner Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson (“Ericsson”) requests
`
`permission to seal its Patent Owner Response and this Motion to Seal under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.14, as each refers to Exhibit 2009, which is already sealed in this
`
`matter. Exhibit 2009 contains confidential information regarding Petitioner
`
`Broadcom Inc.’s (“Broadcom”) confidential Complaint filed in the European
`
`Commission. Because the Patent Owner Response and this Motion to Seal each
`
`refers to this confidential information, Ericsson respectfully requests permission to
`
`seal each Paper.
`I.
`Exhibit 2009
`
`
`
`On July 16, 2012, Broadcom submitted a Complaint with the European
`
`Commission. Exhibit 2009 contains Broadcom’s Complaint to DG Competition
`
`Against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson For Abusive Assertion of RAND-
`
`Committed 802.11n Patents in Breach of Article 102 TFEU (“E.C. Complaint”).
`
`As noted on the face of the pleading, the E.C. Complaint is designated as
`
`“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” The E.C. Complaint remains confidential pending
`
`a ruling by the European Commission on whether to institute an investigation.
`
`Because of their confidential nature and the ongoing actions in the European
`
`Commission, these exhibits should be sealed pending the outcome of the Board’s
`
`decision in this matter.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`II. Ericsson’s Patent Owner Response and this Motion to Seal
`References 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. In addition, 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 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.
`
`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; Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper No. 34 at 3 (2013).
`
`Here, Ericsson has good cause for seeking permission to place its Patent
`
`Owner Response and this Motion under seal pending the outcome of the decision.
`
`The E.C. Complaint includes confidential business information relating to the
`
`Ericsson’s license negotiations with a number of parties. The Complaint was
`
`forwarded to Ericsson with the expectation that it would remain confidential
`
`pending its investigation. No formal action has yet been taken by the European
`
`Commission subsequent to Petitioner’s E.C. Complaint, and all information therein
`
`remains confidential. Both Ericsson and Broadcom previously requested that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`Exhibit 2009 be sealed, and the Board agreed by agreeing to seal Exhibit 2009.
`
`Therefore, Ericsson respectfully requests permission to seal its Patent Owner
`
`Response and this Motion to Seal, which refer to Exhibit 2009.
`III. Proposed Protective Order
`
`Ericsson originally proposed that the default protective order found in
`
`Appendix B of the Trial Practice Guide be entered, and renews its request.
`
`IV. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`A motion to seal requires a certification that the moving party has in good
`
`faith conferred or attempted to confer with the opposing party in an effort to agree
`as to the scope of the proposed protective order. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; Garmin,
`supra, at 3. Counsel for Ericsson conferred with counsel for Petitioner and the
`
`parties agreed to the continued use of the default protective order.
`V. Conclusion
`
`Ericsson respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion to Seal
`
`because it has good cause to seal the confidential exhibits.
`
`
`Dated: June 11, 2014.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /Peter J. Ayers/
`PETER AYERS
`Lee & Hayes, PLLC
`13809 Research Blvd., Suite 405
`Austin, TX 78750
`Telephone: 512.505.8162
`Fax: 509.944.4693
`Attorney for Patent Owner Telefinakteibolaget
`LM Ericsson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on June 11, 2014 the foregoing MOTION TO
`
`SEAL was served via email on Lead and Back-up Counsel for Broadcom
`
`Corporation identified in Broadcom’s Mandatory Notices, whom consented to
`
`electronic service:
`
`Dominic E. Massa, Lead Counsel
`Michael A. Diener, Back-up Counsel
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`WH-External-Broadcom-IPR2013-602@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michael.diener@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`LEE & HAYES PLLC
`
`
`
` /Peter J. Ayers/
`Peter J. Ayers, Reg. No. 38,374