`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`U.S. Patent No. 6,502,1351
`
`––––––––––––––––––
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a Petitioner
`in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Seal
`
`Petitioners The Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., and Apple Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”) hereby move to seal the un-redacted version of Petitioners’
`
`Consolidated Reply Brief (Paper 50), in accordance with the default protective
`
`order filed by Petitioner Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. (“Petitioner
`
`Mangrove”) on March 3, 2016 (Paper No. 43). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54.
`
`Good cause exists for granting the instant motion to seal because information in
`
`Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief has been designated as confidential during
`
`discovery by Petitioner Mangrove.
`
`II. Good Cause Exists for Sealing Certain Information Designated as
`Confidential
`
`The standard governing the Board’s determination of whether to grant a
`
`motion to seal is “good cause.” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36
`
`(Apr. 5, 2013). The Board must “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.” Id.
`
`Exhibit 2049 includes information that Petitioner Mangrove has asserted as
`
`confidential during discovery. This exhibit is subject to Patent Owner’s pending
`
`motion to seal (Paper 43), and constitutes confidential commercial information
`
`under the Board’s rules. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Seal
`
`Brief quotes and discusses the contents of this exhibit at several points, and those
`
`portions have been redacted in the public version of the Reply Brief (Paper 51).
`
`These redactions are appropriate under the same rationale described above. For the
`
`foregoing reasons, there is good cause for granting this motion to seal and protect
`
`this confidential information from disclosure.
`
`III. Proposed Protective Order
`
`Petitioner Mangrove filed a Motion for Entry of the Default Protective Order
`
`on March 3, 2016. (Paper 39). Pursuant to Section 4(B) of the protective order,
`
`the un-redacted version of Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief has been clearly
`
`marked as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL.”
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board seal
`
`the un-redacted version of Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Abraham Kasdan/
`Abraham Kasdan
`Reg. No. 32, 997
`WIGGIN & DANA LLP
`
`James T. Bailey
`Reg. No. 44,518
`THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES. T. BAILEY
`Attorneys for Petitioner Mangrove
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2016
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan /
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion to Seal
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I hereby certify that on this 9th day of May,
`
`2016, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing and any
`
`accompanying exhibits by e-mail on the following counsel:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Abraham Kasdan/
`Abraham Kasdan
`Reg. No. 32, 997
`WIGGIN & DANA LLP
`
`James T. Bailey
`Reg. No. 44,518
`THE LAW OFFICE OF JAMES. T. BAILEY
`Attorneys for Petitioner Mangrove
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2016
`
`/Jeffrey P. Kushan /
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Reg. No. 43,401
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`Attorney for Petitioner Apple