Paper 36
`Date: March 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION ON MOTION TO SEAL
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: March 17, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION ON MOTION TO SEAL
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cased IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed a motion to seal and an unopposed motion for entry of
`protective order. Paper 27. The motion to seal seeks to seal the unredacted
`versions of the deposition of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Jaramaz (Ex. 1011),
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend (Paper
`25), and Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23). Petitioner also
`filed redacted versions of the sealed documents (Ex. 1012; Papers 24, 26), as well
`as the Board’s Default Protective Order, included as Exhibit A with the motion.
`For the reasons set forth below, we grant the motion.
`There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a quasi-
`judicial administrative proceeding open to the public, especially in an inter partes
`review which determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and
`therefore affects the rights of the public. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default
`rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review are open and available for
`access by the public; and a party may file a concurrent motion to seal and the
`information at issue is sealed pending the outcome of the motion.
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 provides:
`The record of a proceeding, including documents and things,
`shall be made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered. 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.
`The document or thing shall be provisionally sealed on receipt of the
`motion and remain so pending the outcome of the decision on the
`motion.
`It is, however, only “confidential information” that is protected from
`disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7)(“The Director shall prescribe regulations -- . . .
`providing for protective orders governing the exchange and submission of
`confidential information”). In that regard, note the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cased IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012), which provides:
`The rules aim to 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.
`* * *
`Confidential Information: 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 information.
`§ 42.54.
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. §
`42.54. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested
`relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). We need to know why the information sought to be
`sealed constitutes confidential information.
`With respect to the deposition of Dr. Jaramaz (Ex. 1011), Petitioner alleges
`that Patent Owner’s counsel, Mr. Buroker, designated certain portions of the
`transcript to be Blue Belt’s confidential business information, related to the amount
`of money that was paid to acquire Blue Belt, and the amount of money that Dr.
`Jaramaz was paid as a result of that acquisition. Mot. 3. Upon our review of the
`transcript and the redacted version, with redactions limited to pages 4–6 of the
`redacted version, we agree that the redactions are narrowly tailored to the indicated
`subjects, and find that there is good cause to redact portions of the original Exhibit
`1011.
`
`With respect to redacted versions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend and Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response, Petitioner argues that “the redactions are directed solely to testimony
`from the deposition of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Jaramaz, which is itself subject to
`the present motion to seal.” Mot. 4. Upon our review, we agree with Petitioner’s
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Cased IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`
`
`
`assertions. For similar reasons as those discussed above, we find that there is good
`cause to redact portions of Petitioner’s Opposition and Reply.
`A motion to seal is required to include a proposed protective order and the
`Motion details that the parties have stipulated to the default protective order, found
`at Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug. 14, 2012). Mot.
`4. We enter this default protective order and order that it shall govern the conduct
`of this proceeding.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Exhibit 1011 and Papers 23 and 25 remain under seal in
`their entirety, with references being made to redacted Exhibit 1012 and Papers 24
`and 26;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed protective order agreed to by the
`parties is hereby entered; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that this protective order shall govern the conduct of
`the proceeding unless otherwise modified.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cased IPR2015-00630
`Patent 6,205,411 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Matthew I. Kreeger
`Walter Wu
`Wesley E. Overson
`MORRISON & FOESTER LLP
`mkreeger@mofo.com
`wwu@mofo.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER / EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE:
`Brian Buroker
`Stuart Rosenberg
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`srosenberg@gibsondunn.com
`
`Gregory Stark
`SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG WOESSNER P.A.
`gstark@slwip.com
`
`Patrick McElhinny
`Mark Knedeisen
`K&L GATES LLP
`patrick.mcelhinny@klgates.com
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`
`5
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
