throbber
Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By: Richard F. Giunta
`Elisabeth H. Hunt
`Randy J. Pritzker
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: (617) 646-8000
`Fax: (617) 646-8646
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`RPX Corporation
`Petitioner
`v.
`Applications in Internet Time, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`Case IPR2015-01752
`Patent 7,356,482 B21
`
`_____________
`PETITIONER’S THIRD MOTION TO SEAL
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order on Conduct of the Proceedings (Paper No.
`
`42), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14. and 42.54 and the Protective Order filed in these
`
`proceedings, Petitioner RPX Corporation (“RPX”), by and through its counsel of
`
`record, moves to seal the following documents filed by Patent Owner in IPR2015-
`
`01750, IPR2015-01751 and IPR2015-01752:
`
`• Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the Petition (Paper No. 21,
`
`hereafter “the Preliminary Response”);
`
`• Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on real party-in-interest (Paper No. 38,
`
`hereafter “the Sur-Reply”);
`
`• Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion for Sanctions (Paper No. 40,
`
`hereafter “the Sanctions Opposition”);
`
`• the description of Exhibit 2026 in the two most recently filed Patent
`
`Owner’s Exhibit Lists (Papers No. 39 and 41);
`
`• Exhibits 2018, 2019, 2022, 2025, and 2026 (collectively hereafter “the
`
`Sensitive Exhibits”); and
`
`• Exhibits 2027 and 2030 (collectively hereafter “the Redacted
`
`Exhibits”).
`
`Redacted non-confidential versions of the Preliminary Response and the
`
`Sur-Reply were previously filed by Patent Owner as Papers No. 26 and No. 37,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`respectively, and redacted non-confidential versions of the Sanctions Opposition,
`
`the Exhibit Lists, and the Redacted Exhibits are being filed by Petitioner
`
`concurrently with this Motion to Seal.2 An executed copy of the Protective Order,
`
`as stipulated to by the parties, was filed by Petitioner as Exhibit 1017 in IPRs
`
`2015-01750 and -01751, and as Exhibit 1117 in IPR2015-01752.3
`
`The documents listed above contain highly confidential and extremely
`
`sensitive information, including, inter alia, references to highly confidential IPR
`
`litigation strategy that RPX employs to pursue its business, references to highly
`
`confidential agreements and communication records, and sensitive details about
`
`how AIT failed to protect RPX’s confidential information. RPX guards its
`
`confidential information to protect its own business as well as third parties and is
`
`2 AIT failed to mark their exhibits with exhibit labels as required by 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.63(d)(1). RPX has added the appropriate exhibit labels to the Redacted
`
`Exhibits filed herewith.
`
`3 All of the exhibits filed by Petitioner are identical between all three proceedings.
`
`Pursuant to the instructions posted on the PRPS webpage for exhibit numbering in
`
`IPRs challenging the same patent (FAQ D9), Petitioner’s exhibit numbers in IPR
`
`2015-01752 are determined by adding 100 to the exhibit numbers in IPR2015-
`
`01750 and IPR2015-01751. For convenience, citations to Petitioner’s exhibits in
`
`this paper below use the exhibit numbers in IPR2015-01750 and IPR2015-01751.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`contractually obligated to keep certain of this information confidential. RPX,
`
`therefore, respectfully requests that the Sensitive Exhibits in their entirety and the
`
`redacted portions of the other above-listed documents be kept under seal. Sealing
`
`this information falls squarely within the Board’s authority to “[require] that a
`
`trade secret or other confidential … commercial information not be revealed or be
`
`revealed only in a specified way …” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a)(7).
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING RPX’S SENSITIVE
`CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`
`In deciding whether to seal documents, the Board must find “good cause,”
`
`and 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.” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36 (April 5, 2013). Here,
`
`the balance tips heavily in favor of protecting RPX’s highly confidential
`
`information.
`
`The Sensitive Exhibits, as detailed below, are composed almost entirely of
`
`sensitive confidential information and cannot be effectively redacted in a manner
`
`that would provide any meaningful content to the public without exposing
`
`confidential information. Accordingly, good cause exists for sealing the Sensitive
`
`Exhibits in their entirety.
`
`The other documents Petitioner hereby moves to seal, for which redacted
`
`non-confidential versions have been or are being filed, reference sensitive
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`confidential information from the Sensitive Exhibits or from other sensitive
`
`documents that Petitioner has previously moved to seal in these proceedings, as
`
`discussed in detail below. To ensure that the public has access to a complete and
`
`understandable file history without disclosing RPX’s confidential information,
`
`Petitioner has tailored its redactions to the Sanctions Opposition, the Exhibits Lists,
`
`and Exhibits 2027 and 2030 as narrowly as possible. Petitioner also believes
`
`Patent Owner’s previously filed redactions to the Preliminary Response and the
`
`Sur-Reply to be narrowly tailored. Most of the confidential information is not
`
`relevant to the substantive issues in these proceedings. As discussed below, even if
`
`the Board finds the existence of some of the confidential information to be
`
`relevant, the specific details revealed in the documents is not necessary for the
`
`public to understand these proceedings, and the harm to RPX of disclosure of such
`
`details far outweighs any public need to access this detailed information.
`
`The information Petitioner hereby moves to seal falls into five categories
`
`addressed separately below. There is good cause for sealing the information in
`
`each of these categories, and there are different reasons for the sensitivity of the
`
`information in each. If the Board were to decide that the information in any
`
`particular category should not be kept under seal, Petitioner requests the
`
`opportunity to provide revised redacted copies of the documents to preserve the
`
`confidentiality of the other categories of sensitive information.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`A. Confidential Agreement Financial Terms
`Petitioner has previously filed and moved (in Paper No. 27) to seal Exhibits
`
`1020-1021, which are confidential agreements that detail sensitive confidential
`
`aspects of business relationships involving third parties. These agreements by their
`
`explicit terms require RPX to keep their terms confidential (Ex. 1020 at §§ 4 and
`
`9.9), and their sensitive details should be kept under seal to protect not only RPX
`
`but also third parties with whom RPX has confidential business relations.
`
`Exhibits 2019 and 2026 are (or are derived from) confidential RPX business
`
`records that reveal detailed financial terms of the confidential agreements in
`
`Exhibits 1020-1021. Disclosure of this detailed information to the public would
`
`severely impact RPX’s ability to conduct business with third parties and could
`
`negatively impact RPX’s business relationships by creating confidentiality
`
`concerns among other parties that have entered or may enter into confidential
`
`agreements with RPX.
`
`If AIT believed that Exhibits 2019 and 2026 were not properly designated
`
`under the Protective Order, the Protective Order (§ 4.A.i ) makes clear that AIT
`
`should have moved for the Board to rule that the information was not confidential.
`
`AIT did not do so. Only after being faced with potential sanctions for the
`
`unauthorized disclosure of RPX’s confidential information did AIT belatedly assert
`
`that the information is not confidential after all. In doing so, AIT misrepresents to
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`the Board that the data in Exhibits 2019 and 2026 “could conceivably” be
`
`calculated based on publicly available information and therefore is not
`
`confidential. Paper No. 40 at 11. This (speculative) statement is false. The
`
`confidential agreement filed as Exhibit 1021, of which AIT is well aware, makes
`
`clear that the data in these exhibits cannot be calculated from publicly available
`
`information .
`
`To understand the merits of this proceeding, all the public needs to know
`
`relating to financing is that no party other than RPX funded these IPRs and RPX
`
`filed them to pursue its own interests. The details in Exhibits 2019 and 2026
`
`exposing the specific financial terms of RPX’s confidential business agreements
`
`are irrelevant, unnecessary for the public to access, and extremely sensitive. The
`
`same is true of the references in AIT’s papers to the detailed information in these
`
`financial reports, which correspond to the following redactions:
`
`• Preliminary Response at pages 1 (line 11); 2 (line 13); 11 (lines 7-16);
`
`12 (lines 1-4, 8-12); 13 (lines 12-13)
`
`• Sur-Reply at pages 1 (line 10); 3 (line 14)
`
`• Sanctions Opposition at pages 10 (line 2), 11 (lines 3-11)
`
`• Exhibit Lists’ description of confidential Exhibit 2026
`
`• Exhibit 2030 at page 2
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`The Board will note that among the documents to which RPX requests
`
`redaction in the public record are AIT’s recent Exhibit Lists. The reason is that
`
`AIT gave Exhibit 2026 a name in the Exhibit Lists that reveals sensitive
`
`information. RPX sought to resolve this issue by asking AIT to voluntarily choose
`
`a less descriptive name for this exhibit in the Exhibit List, to remove the necessity
`
`of redacting the Exhibit List each time it is updated. AIT was “unwilling” to do so
`
`and indicated that it would “conform future exhibit lists” only if the Board renders
`
`an opinion that the description of Exhibit 2026 in the Exhibit List reveals
`
`confidential information.
`
`As demonstrated above, good cause exists for keeping the above redacted
`
`document portions, as well as Exhibits 2019 and 2026 in their entirety, under seal.
`
`IPR Litigation Strategy
`
`B.
`Exhibits 2018 and 2025 are confidential RPX business records that reveal
`
`RPX’s highly sensitive IPR litigation strategy, including how RPX identifies
`
`patents to challenge via IPR. Disclosure of this information would provide an
`
`unfair advantage to litigants and other adversarial parties with whom RPX deals
`
`and would hamper RPX’s ability to carry out its business.
`
`To understand the merits of this proceeding, all the public needs to know is
`
`that RPX filed these IPRs to further its own interests, and not at the direction or
`
`under the control of any other party. The highly sensitive details of RPX’s IPR
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`litigation strategy, revealing how and why RPX’s interests are served by filing
`
`these and other IPRs, are not relevant to this proceeding and are unnecessary for
`
`the public to access, particularly given the highly sensitive nature of this litigation
`
`strategy information and the significant harm to RPX that would result from
`
`revealing it publicly. Accordingly, good cause exists to seal Exhibits 2018 and
`
`2025 in their entirety, and to redact the following portions of the papers that
`
`reference their content:
`
`• Preliminary Response at page 9, line 13 – page 10, line 9
`
`• Sur-Reply at pages 2 (lines 4-6); 3-5 (throughout)
`
`C. Confidential Business Communications
`Exhibit 2022 is a confidential RPX record of business communications. All
`
`of the information in this record is non-public and has the potential, if disclosed, to
`
`negatively impact RPX’s relations and negotiations with third parties. To the
`
`extent this information has any relevance to the merits of these proceedings, it is
`
`only at a high level of generality. The public has no need to access the sensitive
`
`details pervading these records.
`
`Confidential information derived from Exhibit 2022 is also exposed in the
`
`following portions of AIT’s papers:
`
`• Preliminary Response at page 10, line 19 – page 11, line 3; page 13
`
`(line 6); pages 14-19 (throughout)
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`• Sur-Reply at page 1, line 20 – page 2, line 1; page 2, line 12 – page 3,
`
`line 4; page 4 (lines 12-17)
`
`• Sanctions Opposition at page 10 (lines 1-2, 9-17)
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to keep these redacted portions under seal,
`
`together with Exhibit 2022 in its entirety.
`
`D. AIT’s Failures To Protect RPX’s Confidential Information
`AIT’s Sanctions Opposition contains statements that expose sensitive details
`
`about how AIT failed to protect RPX’s confidential information, at the following
`
`redacted portions:
`
`• Sanctions Opposition at pages 5 (lines 9, 13-15, 18-19); 9 (lines 3-12,
`
`19-20); 10 (lines 1-2, 9-12)
`
`Disclosure of these statements would risk further improper dissemination of
`
`RPX’s sensitive confidential information, and therefore good cause exists to keep
`
`these redacted portions under seal. RPX raised this issue with the Board in an
`
`earlier conference call, and the Board agreed to keep the details of AIT’s failings
`
`out of the Board’s order authorizing RPX to file its Motion for Sanctions. RPX
`
`requests that the above-listed redacted portions be kept under seal for the same
`
`reasons.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Information RPX Is Obligated To Keep Confidential
`
`E.
`Pursuant to the terms of the confidential agreement filed as Exhibit 1020,
`
`RPX is obligated to treat the information referenced in the following portions of
`
`AIT’s filings as confidential:
`
`• Preliminary Response at pages i (heading II.E); 1 (lines 10, 12); 2
`
`(lines 9-15); 7 (line 1); 9 (lines 7, 10-11, 15); 11 (lines 4-16); 13 (lines
`
`12-13); 19 (lines 12-15, 18); 20 (lines 2-3)
`
`• Sur-Reply at pages 1 (line 8); 2 (line 4); 3 (line 13); 4 (line 9)
`
`• Sanctions Opposition at page 9, line 20 – page 10, line 17
`
`• Exhibit 2027 at page 1
`
`Sealing This Information Is Consistent with Board Practice
`
`F.
`The confidential information in the five categories above is highly sensitive,
`
`and the harm to RPX of disclosure of the detailed records involved far outweighs
`
`any alleged relevance to the merits of these proceedings and any need for the
`
`public to access the information. The Board has previously found good cause to
`
`keep similar information confidential. See Unified Patents Inc. v. Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC, IPR2014-01252, Paper 40 (Feb. 27, 2015) at 6 (holding
`
`good cause existed to seal the identities of Petitioner’s members); at 6-7
`
`(membership terms and business strategies are highly sensitive confidential
`
`information); and at 7 (financial information can be sealed where reasonable
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`redactions were proposed and the financial information was not relevant to
`
`underlying arguments about real party in interest); see also Farmwald and RPX v.
`
`Parkervision, IPR2014-00948, Paper 58 (July 30, 2015) at 3-4 (finding good cause
`
`and granting Petitioners’ motion to seal confidential information including RPX’s
`
`business objectives, litigation strategy and information about RPX’s
`
`clients/members) and Paper 74 (granting Petitioners’ subsequent Motion to
`
`Expunge the same information). The same rationale applies to this case, and
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Sensitive Exhibits in their entirety and the
`
`redacted portions of the other above-listed documents be kept under seal.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION STATUS
`Petitioner’s undersigned counsel certifies that the information sought to be
`
`sealed by this motion has not been published or otherwise made public to the best
`
`of his knowledge. The Board’s Order granting discovery makes reference to
`
`Salesforce being an RPX client. That information was not provided to the Board
`
`by RPX but rather from AIT. Petitioner does not know the basis for that
`
`representation from AIT but does not believe that there has ever been any publicly
`
`available disclosure that Salesforce is an RPX client. Counsel for AIT has in fact
`
`stated that the only basis for AIT representing to the Board as fact that Salesforce
`
`is an RPX client was speculation. Ex. 1035. To the extent the Board determines
`
`that the status of whether Salesforce is an RPX client is considered to be public,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`the information that RPX requests be sealed is far more detailed and has not been
`
`published or otherwise made public to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`RPX has in good faith conferred with Patent Owner about sealing RPX’s
`
`confidential information. Patent Owner previously agreed to be bound by the
`
`Board’s default protective order (subsequently filed as Exhibit 1017) but objects to
`
`entry of the revised protective order filed as Exhibit 1047. This Motion is being
`
`filed pursuant to the Board’s Order (Paper No. 42), and AIT has represented to the
`
`Board that it will oppose this Motion. AIT has made clear in its Sanctions
`
`Opposition that it contests the propriety of some of the confidential designations in
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/Richard F. Giunta/
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Elisabeth H. Hunt, Reg. No. 67,336
`Randy J. Pritzker, Reg. No. 35,986
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`617.646.8000
`
`12
`
`the documents discussed herein.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`It is hereby certified that on this 8th day of February, 2016, a copy of the
`
`foregoing document, together with all accompanying documents, was served via
`
`electronic mail, as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`Jonathan Pearce (Reg. No. 60,972)
`M. Kala Sarvaiya (Reg. No. 58,912)
`SoCal IP Law Group LLP
`310 N. Westlake Boulevard, Suite 120
`Westlake Village, CA 91362
`uspto@socalip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Richard F. Giunta/
`Richard F. Giunta
`
`
`
`
`
`13

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket