`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 34 IPR2014-00678
` Paper 32 IPR2014-00687
` Paper 32 IPR2014-00688
`
`Paper 31 IPR2014-00689
` Date: December 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1
`IPR2014-00678 (Patent 6,691,038)
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all four cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case. The parties
`are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00678 (Patent 6,691,038)
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`On December 2, 2014, a conference call was held in the above proceedings
`regarding joint motions to seal. Present on the call were counsel for the parties and
`Administrative Patent Judges Bryan Moore, Scott Daniels, and Beverly Bunting,
`and a court reporter.
`Petitioner filed motions to seal with its petitions in the above entitled IPRs.
`In an order dated August 12, 2014, due to the lack of specificity in Petitioner’s
`original motions to seal, the Board authorized a renewed motion to seal filed as a
`joint motion to seal. The parties filed the joint motion to seal on September 30,
`2014. Paper 30.2
`The Board was persuaded that the exhibits requested to be sealed should be
`sealed except the following: Ex. 2004 of the 678 case, Ex. 1019 and 1025 of the
`688 case, Ex. 1020 of the 687 case, and Ex. 1053 of the 689 case. The Board’s
`standards for granting motions to seal are discussed in Garmin International v.
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper 34, March 14, 2013). In
`summary, there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in inter
`partes review proceedings open to the public. Id. The public has a strong interest
`in accessing documents or portions of document that allegedly discloses
`information relevant to claim construction or the support for any ground of
`
`2 All references to papers cite to the IPR2014-00678 case unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00678 (Patent 6,691,038)
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`invalidity. The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. The moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief requested
`should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). This includes showing that the
`information is truly confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong
`public interest in having an open record.
`Parties have failed to carry this burden as to the exhibits listed above. The
`exhibits are described generally in the motions to seal as being a third party’s (Ion
`Geophysical Corporation’s (Ion”)) confidential documents subject to a protective
`order in the district court. See e.g., Paper 30, 5. Our review of these exhibits
`revealed that they contained generally discussion of prior art without any obviously
`confidential discussion. Given these facts, the Panel conducted a phone conference
`in which the parties did not provide further detail regarding the specific reasons for
`the confidentiality of the exhibits in question. Nonetheless, the parties offered to,
`and did, reach out Ion regarding the exhibits. In an email to the Board dated
`Thursday, December 11, 2014, Ion indicated that it did not intend to defend the
`confidentiality of those exhibits.
`Finally, we note also that the parties submitted an unsigned copy of the
`Default Protective Order. Thus, the joint motion to seal is denied as to those
`exhibits and granted as to all other exhibits listed in the motion conditioned on the
`parties filing a signed copy of Default Protective Order within ten business days of
`this order.
`It is
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00678 (Patent 6,691,038)
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`ORDERED that the joint motion to seal is DENIED as to Ex. 2004 of the
`678 case, EX. 1019 and 1025 of the 688 case, Ex. 1020 of the 687 case, and Ex.
`1053 of the 689 case and these exhibits submitted under seal, shall be made public
`in ten business days from the date of this order;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motion to seal is conditionally
`GRANTED as to the remaining exhibits in the joint motion to seal pending the
`parties filing a copy of the Default Protective Order signed by both parties within
`ten business days of this order;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Default Protective Order shall be entered in
`this case upon filing of a signed copy thereof.
`.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00678 (Patent 6,691,038)
`IPR2014-00687 (Patent 7,162,967)
`IPR2014-00688 (Patent 7,080,607)
`IPR2014-00689 (Patent 7,293,520)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`JDavid Berl
`Christopher Suarez
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`dberl@wc.com
`csuarez@wc.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Christopher A. Bullard
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND,
`MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`CPdocketMcKeown@oblon.com
`CPdocketBullard@oblon.com
`
`5