`Filed: January 15, 2015
`
`Filed on behalf of Microsoft Corporation and VirnetX, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION and APPLE INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent 7,987,2741
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Case IPR2014-00484 has been joined with this case.
`
`
`
` Patent Owner VirnetX
`
`Inc.
`
`(“VirnetX”) and Petitioner Microsoft
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft”) request permission to seal the document contained in
`
`Exhibit 2044 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Exhibit 2044 is a copy of a confidential
`
`settlement agreement between Microsoft and VirnetX. Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) is not a party to the confidential settlement agreement. Because Exhibit
`
`2044 contains highly confidential information of an extremely sensitive nature,
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner Microsoft respectfully request entry of the Default
`
`Protective Order with an Addendum that limits Exhibit 2044 to “Outside Attorney
`
`Eyes Only” and requests permission to place Exhibit 2044 under seal. Apple does
`
`not oppose this request.
`
`I.
`
`Good Cause Exists for Sealing Exhibit 2044
`
`In determining whether to grant a Motion to Seal, the Board must “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.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48771, 48760
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). “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. “The 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`information.” Trial Practice Guide at 48760. “The Board may, for good cause,
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`issue an order to protect a party or person from disclosing confidential
`
`information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`Exhibit 2044 is a copy of a confidential settlement agreement between
`
`Microsoft and VirnetX that settles all pending patent disputes between the parties.
`
`The parties are bound by the agreement to keep its terms confidential. Patent
`
`Owner and Microsoft present this settlement agreement to the Board solely for the
`
`purpose of terminating this proceeding with respect to Microsoft. (See Joint
`
`Motion to Terminate Proceeding With Respect to Microsoft.) The details of the
`
`confidential settlement agreement between Microsoft and VirnetX are not material
`
`to any arguments presented by any of the parties
`
`Moreover, in the unlikely event a party needs access to any of the
`
`information within Exhibit 2044, this information will still be available to that
`
`party’s outside attorneys even under the modified protective order. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner and Microsoft respectfully submit that good cause exists for filing this
`
`exhibit under seal and limiting it to Outside Attorney Eyes Only in this proceeding.
`
`II. Certification of Non-Publication
`On behalf of Patent Owner and Petitioner Microsoft, the undersigned
`
`counsel certify that Exhibit 2044 has not, to their knowledge, been published or
`
`otherwise made public. Efforts to maintain the confidentiality of Exhibit 2044
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`have been undertaken by Patent Owner and Microsoft in the related district court
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`proceeding between the parties.
`
`III. Certification of Conference with Opposing Party Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54
`
`The parties have conferred as to the scope of the Default Protective Order
`
`with Addendum. The parties, including Petitioner Apple, have agreed to the
`
`provisions in the modified protective order.
`
`IV. Proposed Protective Order
`Patent Owner and Petitioner Microsoft respectfully request that the Default
`
`Protective Order with Addendum be entered in this proceeding. A clean copy of
`
`the Default Protective Order with proposed Addendum is submitted with this
`
`Motion as Exhibit 2045. A redline version of the Default Protective Order with the
`
`proposed Addendum is submitted as Exhibit 2046.
`
`As shown in the redlined version, the Addendum is limited to Exhibit 2044
`
`and is substantially similar to the language of the Default Protective Order. The
`
`Addendum substantively differs from the Default Protective order in that it (1) is
`
`limited to Exhibit 2044; (2) limits access to Exhibit 2044 to outside attorney eyes
`
`only; and (3) removes the provision specifying that redacted versions of documents
`
`with both confidential and non-confidential information should be submitted.
`
`First, the Addendum specifies: “This Addendum governs the treatment and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`filing of Exhibit 2044.” Instead of more broadly discussing confidential
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`information and documents, as does the Default Protective Order, the Addendum is
`
`limited to Exhibit 2044.
`
`Second, paragraphs 1 and 4(B) of the Addendum specify that confidential
`
`information is to be marked “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL – OUTSIDE
`
`ATTORNEY EYES ONLY.” Paragraph 2 of the Addendum differs from the
`
`language of the Default Protective Order in that the entries beginning with
`
`“Parties,” “In-house counsel,” and “Other Employees of a Party” are not included
`
`in the listing of who may receive Exhibit 2044. This has the effect of disallowing
`
`employees and principals of Apple from receiving access to Exhibit 2044.
`
`Paragraph 2 further differs from the language of the Default Protective Order
`
`in that the title “Party Representatives” is changed to “Outside Attorneys.” This
`
`difference, in conjunction with the others, has the effect of limiting access to
`
`Exhibit 2044 to outside attorney eyes only.
`
`Third, the Addendum specifies that Exhibit 2044 may be filed with the
`
`Board under seal with a non-confidential description of the Exhibit. The
`
`Addendum does not include the language of paragraph 4(A)(ii) of the Default
`
`Protective Order which specifies that redacted versions of exhibits should be filed
`
`where the exhibit includes confidential and non-confidential information. Because
`
`this paragraph does not apply to Exhibit 2044, it is not included in the Addendum.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Good cause exists for the Addendum because it allows Exhibit 2044, which
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent No. 7,987,274
`
`
`
`contains sensitive and highly confidential information, to be submitted to the
`
`Board without harming anyone’s ability to raise arguments or claims and without
`
`harming the Patent Owner’s and Microsoft’s interests in keeping the agreement
`
`confidential. The differences between the language of the Default Protective Order
`
`and the Addendum simply provide clarity as to who may receive Exhibit 2044
`
`under the protective order.
`
`V. Conclusion
`For these reasons, Patent Owner and Petitioner Microsoft respectfully
`
`request that the Default Protective Order with Addendum be entered and that
`
`Exhibit 2044 be placed under seal.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner
`Registration No. 41,265
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`Dated: January 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`VirnetX, Inc.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2014-00404
`Patent 7,987,274
`
`I hereby certify that on this 15th day of January 2015, a copy of the
`
`foregoing Motion to Seal was served by electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Microsoft Corporation:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Kevin E. Greene
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`IPR38868-0002IP4@fr.com
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan (jkushan@sidley.com)
`Joseph A. Micallef (jmicallef@sidley.com)
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.