Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 87
`Entered: May 9, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011211
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`ORDER
`Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00762 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 87
`Entered: May 9, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC, and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-011211
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`ORDER
`Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00762 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`The following motions have been filed by the parties to seal portions
`of the record.
`1. On May 8, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal Patent
`Owner’s Response (Paper 29) and Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010, and
`2011. Paper 32. Patent Owner asserts that “these papers contain highly
`confidential and extremely sensitive research, operations, sales, and financial
`information related to [Patent Owner] that [Patent Owner] has not and would
`never make publicly available.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner concurrently filed a
`redacted public version of the Patent Owner Response (Paper 30). Exhibits
`2004 and 2005 are evidence cited by a Declaration of Mark E. Carrier (Ex.
`2003). Exhibit 2007 is evidence cited by a Declaration of John Filla (Ex.
`2006). Exhibits 2010 and 2011 are respectively a Declaration of Christopher
`J. Bokhart and curriculum vitae and supporting schedules for Mr. Bokhart’s
`Declaration. Patent Owner filed redacted public versions of Exhibits 2010
`and 2011.
`2. On August 21, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal Petitioner’s
`Reply (Paper 37) and Exhibits 1014 and 1020. Paper 35. Petitioner asserts
`that “these papers contain confidential and financial information related to a
`non-party, Goodman Manufacturing, that [Petitioner] has not and would
`never make publicly available, and that [was] provided to [Petitioner] under
`a nondisclosure agreement prohibiting their disclosure.” Id. at 2. Exhibits
`1014 and 1020 are respectively Declarations of Ivan T. Hoffman and Ge Hu.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner concurrently filed redacted public versions of each of Petitioner’s
`Reply (Paper 36) and Exhibits 1014 and 1020.
`3. On September 25, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 45). Paper 52. Patent
`Owner asserts that “this paper contains information the Petitioner deems
`highly confidential and extremely sensitive operations information.” Id.
`at 2. Concurrent with its Motion, Patent Owner filed a redacted public
`version of the Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 53).
`4. On September 25, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal
`Exhibits 2027, 2034, and 2035. Paper 56. Patent Owner asserts that “these
`papers contain highly confidential and extremely sensitive research,
`operations, sales, and financial information related to [Patent Owner] that
`[Patent Owner] has not and would never make publicly available.” Id. at 2.
`Exhibit 2027 is evidence cited by a revised Declaration of Mark E. Carrier
`(Ex. 2033). Exhibits 2034 and 2035 are respectively a revised Declaration
`of Christopher J. Bokhart and revised curriculum vitae and supporting
`schedules for Mr. Bokhart’s Declaration. Patent Owner filed redacted public
`versions of Exhibits 2034 and 2035.
`5. On September 25, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`(Paper 57). Paper 62. Petitioner asserts that the paper “contains references
`to confidential and financial information related to a non-party, Goodman
`Manufacturing, that [Petitioner] has not and would never make publicly
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`available, and that was provided to [Petitioner] under a nondisclosure
`agreement prohibiting their disclosure.” Id. at 1.
`6. On October 2, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal Patent
`Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude Evidence (Paper 63).
`Paper 64. Patent Owner asserts that “this paper contains information the
`Petitioner deems highly confidential and extremely sensitive operations
`information.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner filed a redacted public version of
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Exclude Evidence as
`Paper 65.
`Except as ordered otherwise, proceedings before the Board are
`available to the public. The Board’s standards for granting motions to seal
`are discussed in Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies,
`LLC, Case IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34). In summary,
`there is a strong public policy for making all information covered in inter
`partes review proceedings open to the public. 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. A motion to seal is required to include a certification that
`the moving party has in good faith conferred, or attempted to confer, with
`the opposing party in an effort to come to an agreement on the scope of the
`protection sought. Garmin at 3.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`The parties’ motions include requests for entry of a proposed
`Stipulated Protective Order, filed as Exhibit 2001. Papers 32, 35, 52, 56, 62,
`64. The proposed Stipulated Protective Order deviates from the Board’s
`default protective order in that it includes provisions for an “Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” designation that Patent Owner asserts “mirrors the provision of the
`protective order entered in related district court litigation and is necessary to
`protect highly confidential design, development, testing, and financial
`information, the disclosure of which would cause significant competitive
`harm.” E.g., Paper 32, 3. A redlined version of the proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order illustrating its differences from the Board’s default
`protective order was filed as Exhibit 2002. The motions further include
`assertions that the parties have conferred and agreed to the scope and terms
`of the Stipulated Protective Order. Papers 32, 35, 52, 56, 62, 64.
`We are persuaded that good cause exists to enter the Stipulated
`Protective Order; to seal Papers 29, 37, 45, 57, and 63, and Exhibits 2004,
`2005, 2007, and 2027; and to seal the unredacted versions of Exhibits 1014,
`1020, 2010, 2011, 2034, and 2035.
`Confidential information subject to a protective order ordinarily will
`become public 45 days after the Board issues a final judgment in a trial. See
`Rules of Practice for Trials, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,623 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, after the Board issues a final judgment in a trial, a
`party may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record,
`something the party may wish to do, if at all, before the 45 days have passed.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`If the Board ultimately grants such a motion in relation to certain documents,
`those documents will no longer be of record in the case or otherwise
`available.
`We also note that the parties have filed a number of documents as
`“Parties and Board Only” in the proceeding, without a motion to seal:
`Papers 46–48; and Exhibits 1013, 1015, 1016, 1022, 1023, 1026, 1034–
`1036, 1038, and 2030–2032. At the conclusion of the 45-day period, those
`Papers and Exhibits that have been filed as confidential, but for which no
`motion to seal has been granted, will become publicly available and remain
`as part of the record.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motions to Seal, filed as Papers 32, 35, 52, 56,
`62, and 64, are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulated Protective Order filed as
`Exhibit 2001 is hereby entered;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Papers 29, 37, 45, 57, and 63, and
`Exhibits 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2027, remain sealed; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the unredacted versions of Exhibits 1014,
`1020, 2010, 2011, 2034, and 2035 remain sealed.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`Steven Meyer
`smeyer@lockelord.com
`
`Charles Baker
`cbaker@lockelord.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`Scott Brown
`sbrown@hoveywilliams.com
`
`Matthew Walters
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
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
