throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket