`
` Entered: December 23, 2014
`
`
`
` Trials@uspto.gov
` 571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`_______________
`
`Before NEIL T. POWELL and J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`Introduction
`Petitioner contacted us seeking 1) leave to file a reply to Patent Owner’s
`Opposition (Paper 22) to Petitioner’s November 15, 2014 Motion to Seal (Paper
`12), and 2) guidance “on a way to reduce/consolidate” potential future briefing
`related to motions to seal.
`Petitioner’s Request to File a Reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal outlines substantive reasons that Petitioner
`believes evidence filed by Patent Owner should be sealed, and Patent Owner’s
`Opposition presents substantive reasons that it opposes sealing certain portions of
`this evidence. On the present record, we understand that the evidence Petitioner
`desires to seal is evidence Petitioner provided to Patent Owner through discovery
`volunteered by Petitioner. Petitioner had adequate opportunity to address the
`relevant issues, and additional briefing is not warranted on the substantive reasons
`Petitioner desires the evidence sealed. Accordingly, we do not authorize Petitioner
`to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s November 15, 2014
`Motion to Seal.
`We note, however, that the present record contains ambiguity regarding
`what evidence Petitioner desires to seal. Petitioner’s Motion to Seal indicates that
`Petitioner desires to completely seal Exhibits 2001, 2003–2005, 2007–2009, 2011–
`2013, 2015, and 2016. Paper 12, 2. On the other hand, Patent Owner’s Opposition
`indicates that Petitioner does not desire to seal all parts of these exhibits. For
`example, Patent Owner’s Opposition states that Petitioner wants only the cover
`email of Exhibit 2007 sealed, not the slides included in Exhibit 2007. Paper 22, 8.
`In order to decide the dispute about sealing evidence in the exhibits listed in
`Petitioner’s Motion, we require clarity regarding which specific parts of the
`exhibits the parties have a dispute about sealing. Accordingly, we exercise our
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) and order the parties to file a joint paper
`identifying which specific portions of Exhibits 2001, 2003–2005, 2007–2009,
`2011–2013, 2015, and 2016 Petitioner requests to be sealed, and which specific
`portions of these exhibits Patent Owner opposes sealing. The joint paper shall not
`present substantive arguments regarding the merits of sealing the evidence. The
`due date for filing the joint paper is January 9, 2015.
`Petitioner’s Request for Guidance Regarding Reducing/Consolidating Briefing
`Related to Motions to Seal
`The most effective way for the parties to reduce briefing related to motions
`to seal is for the parties to collaborate to minimize disputes about sealing evidence.
`To the extent the parties may encounter additional issues that they cannot resolve
`regarding sealing evidence, the parties must continue following the normal
`processes required under our rules for handling motions to seal and any other
`related briefing. Thus, a party wishing to have evidence sealed must file a motion
`to seal.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the parties shall file, by January 9, 2015, a joint paper
`explaining what specific portions of Exhibits 2001, 2003–2005, 2007–2009, 2011–
`2013, 2015, and 2016 Petitioner requests to be sealed, as well as what specific
`portions of these exhibits Patent Owner opposes sealing.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01252
`Patent 5,930,444
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Kiklis
`cpdocketkiklis@oblon.com
`
`Katherine Cappaert
`cpdocketcappaert@oblon.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason Angell
`janfell@fawlaw.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
