`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00739
`Patent No. RE 42,678
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
`
`
`US.104199748.01
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00739
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § § 42.14 and 42.54 and the Proposed Stipulated
`
`Protective Order (“Protective Order”) agreed to by the parties and submitted in this
`
`proceeding (see Paper No. 17, Ex. A), and for the reasons set forth below,
`
`Petitioner hereby moves to seal its Motion to Re-Caption the Proceeding (Paper
`
`20) (hereinafter the “Proposed Sealed Document”)1, which has been filed
`
`contemporaneously with this Motion. Additionally, Petitioner has filed a redacted,
`
`public version of the Proposed Sealed Document as “confidentiality is alleged as to
`
`some but not all of the information” therein. See Protective Order, ¶ 4(A)(ii).
`
`Because the Proposed Sealed Document contains Petitioner’s confidential
`
`business information that is not publicly available, Petitioner moves to seal it for
`
`good cause explained in more detail below.
`
`II. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Confidential Information
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “[t]he 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
`
`
`1 Petitioner understands that Paragraph 4(A) of the Default Protective Order and
`
`the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order authorizes and requires the present
`
`Motion.
`
`
`US.104199748.01
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00739
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents
`
`information.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Further, those “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.” Id. (citing
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54); see also Illumina, Inc. v. Columbia Univ., IPR2013-00011,
`
`Paper 66 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2013) (granting a motion to seal “technical and
`
`business information” and “product development information”). The standard for
`
`granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. In determining
`
`good cause, the board must balance the public’s interest in a complete and
`
`understandable file history with a party’s interest in protecting sensitive
`
`information. See Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper
`
`36 at 3-4 (P.T.A.B. April 5, 2013). The public’s interest in viewing Petitioner’s
`
`confidential business information that is only indirectly related to patent invalidity
`
`is minimal (Id. at 8-9), and is outweighed by Petitioner’s interest in protecting its
`
`confidential business information.
`
`Petitioner seeks to seal its Motion to Re-Caption the Proceeding because a
`
`portion of that document summarizes and/or otherwise reveals Petitioner’s
`
`confidential business information derived from documents that are not publicly
`
`available, the disclosure of which could have a serious negative impact on
`
`Petitioner and its business. In particular, the confidential portion of the Motion
`
`
`US.104199748.01
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00739
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents
`
`consists of one footnote that describes a portion of a non-public schedule attached
`
`to a public agreement that is described in the Motion. The footnote with the
`
`confidential information has been redacted from the publicly-filed version of
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Re-Caption the Proceeding (Paper 21).
`
`Undersigned counsel for Petitioner has conferred with counsel for the Patent
`
`Owner regarding the relief requested in this Motion, and counsel for Patent Owner
`
`has agreed not to object to this Motion.
`
`III. Certification of Non-Publication
`
`On behalf of Petitioner, the undersigned counsel certifies that the
`
`information sought to be sealed by this Motion has not been published or otherwise
`
`made public.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant the present Motion and seal its Motion to Re-Caption the Proceedings (Paper
`
`20).
`
`Dated: January 22, 2016
`
`
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`90 S. Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: (612) 766-7000
`
`
`US.104199748.01
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`
`
` / Walter Linder /
`Walter C. Linder, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 31, 707
`Telephone: 612-766-8801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00739
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Documents to be served by email on the following:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg, Reg. No. 43,447
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mail: jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Robert Greene Sterne, Reg. No. 28,912
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mail: rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Jon E. Wright, Reg. No. 50,720
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mail: jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Nicholas J. Nowak
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mail: nnowak-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
`
`
`/ Walter Linder /
`By:
` Walter C. Linder
`
`Reg. No. 31,707
`
`Customer No. 25764
`
`Telephone: 612-766-8801
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
`
`2200 Wells Fargo Center
`
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
`Telephone: (612) 766-7000
`Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US.104199748.01
`
`
`
`4