UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01201
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01201
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678
`
`___________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.14 and the Board’s decision on Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Entry of a Modified Protective Order (Paper No. 19 at 10), Petitioner
`
`requests that the Board seal Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response and
`
`Exhibit Nos. 1027–1030. Exhibit Nos. 1027–1030 are transcripts of depositions of
`
`Patent Owner’s declarants. Patent Owner requested that the deposition transcripts
`
`be marked confidential/ITAR-Restricted under the Protective Order. (Paper 20).
`
`Information from the documents that Patent Owner requested to be marked
`
`confidential/ITAR-Restricted is discussed in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`
`Response. Petitioner is therefore filing the instant motion to seal the Reply and
`
`Exhibit Nos. 1027–1030
`
`in deference
`
`to Patent Owner’s confidentiality
`
`designations. Patent Owner does not oppose.
`
`II. THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Patent Owner moved for entry of a modified protective order herein because
`
`Patent Owner indicated that it was necessary to submit confidential documents,
`
`including documents that are subject to The International Traffic in Arms
`
`Regulations (“ITAR”), in connection with its Patent Owner Response. (Paper 14).
`
`The Board granted Patent Owner’s motion and Ordered Patent Owner to (1) file a
`
`clean copy of the Protective Order (revised as indicated in the Board’s Order) and
`
`(2) submit a signed copy of the Protective Order as an exhibit “with the first-filed
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion to Seal in this proceeding.” (Paper 19 at 11). Patent Owner filed the
`
`Protective Order (Paper 20), and filed a signed copy of the Protective Order as
`
`Exhibit 2065 with its Motion to Seal of March 11, 2016 (Paper 21).
`
`III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide provides that “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.” 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). 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).
`
`In its motion for a Protective Order, Patent Owner indicated that certain
`
`applications for microcircuits made according to U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 (“the
`
`’678 Patent”), the patent at issue in this proceeding, relate to national defense and
`
`are thus subject to strict confidentiality requirements and regulations, including
`
`ITAR. (Paper 14 at 1-2). In particular, Patent Owner has identified information
`
`relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the ’678 Patent as subject to
`
`ITAR. (Id. at 2).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the following documents be sealed:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1027–1030
`
`In connection with the Reply to Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioner submits
`
`five deposition transcripts of Patent Owner’s declarants, the following four of which
`
`Patent Owner has requested to have marked confidential or ITAR-Restricted in their
`
`entirety because Patent Owner has indicated that they contain information related to
`
`the conception and reduction to practice of the ’678 Patent, and contain information
`
`from Exhibits identified in Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal as confidential and ITAR-
`
`Restricted. (Paper 21 at 3-6).
`
`1)
`
`2)
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`Deposition transcript of A. Bruce Buckman (May 5, 2016) (Ex. 1027).
`
`Deposition transcript of Ronald M. Finnila (May 16, 2016) (Ex. 1028).
`
`Deposition transcript of Joseph J. Bendik (May 17, 2016) (Ex. 1029).
`
`Deposition transcript of Gerald T. Malloy (May 27, 2016) (Ex. 1030).
`
`Accordingly, because Patent Owner has requested that Exhibits 1027-1030 be
`
`marked as confidential and ITAR-Restricted under the Protective Order (Paper No.
`
`20), Petitioner respectfully requests that Exhibits 1027-1030 be sealed. Patent
`
`Owner does not oppose.
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response contains excerpts from and
`
`discussion of the Exhibits identified in the instant motion, as well as from the
`
`Exhibits identified as confidential and ITAR-Restricted in Patent Owner’s Motion
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`to Seal. (Paper 21 at 3-6). Accordingly, because information that Patent Owner
`
`requested to be marked confidential and ITAR-Restricted under the Protective Order
`
`(Paper No. 20) is discussed in the Reply, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Reply be sealed. Patent Owner does not oppose. Petitioner is concurrently filing a
`
`non-confidential version of the Reply with the confidential and ITAR-Restricted
`
`material redacted.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board seal
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response and Exhibit Nos. 1027–1030.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Matthew A. Smith/
`
`Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003)
`Jennifer Seraphine (pro hac vice)
`Jacob Zweig (pro hac vice)
`Turner Boyd LLP
`702 Marshall Street, Suite 640
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`(650) 265-6109
`
`T. Cy Walker (Reg. No. 52,337)
`Robert Hails (Reg. No. 39,702)
`BakerHostetler
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Suite 1100
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5304
`(202) 861-1688
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Sony Corporation
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 20, 2016, I served a copy of Petitioner’s
`
`Unopposed Motion to Seal Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, on counsel for patent
`
`owner at the following email addresses: tfilarski@steptoe.com,
`
`sschlitter@steptoe.com, dstringfield@steptoe.com, 678IPR@steptoe.com, and
`
`jabramic@steptoe.com.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jacob S. Zweig/
`Jacob S. Zweig
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Sony Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`6
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
