`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`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 SIXTH 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 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14. and 42.54, the Revised Protective Order
`
`entered by the Board (see Ex. 3001), and the Board’s Order of June 5, 2019 (Paper
`
`113)2 in these remand proceedings for IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751 and
`
`IPR2015-01752 (collectively, “Remand Proceedings”), Petitioner RPX
`
`Corporation (“Petitioner” or “RPX”), by and through its counsel of record, moves
`
`to seal: (1) portions of the transcript of the April 25, 2019 Oral Hearing (Paper
`
`112) (“Remand Hearing Transcript”); (2) portions of Petitioner’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits for the April 25, 2019 Oral Hearing (Exhibit 1098); and (3) portions of
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for the April 25, 2019 Oral Hearing
`
`(Exhibit 2037).
`
`Redacted, non-confidential versions of the Remand Hearing Transcript,
`
`Exhibit 1098, and Exhibit 2037 are being filed concurrently with this Motion.
`
`The Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112) and the parties’ demonstrative
`
`exhibits (Exhibits 1098 and 2037) contain highly confidential and extremely
`
`sensitive information, including, inter alia, highly confidential IPR litigation
`
`strategy that RPX employs to pursue its business, and highly confidential
`
`agreements, financial information, communication records, and references thereto.
`
`RPX guards its confidential information to protect its own business as well as third
`
`parties, and is contractually obligated to keep certain of this information
`
`
`2 This Motion uses the Exhibit numbers and Paper numbers from IPR2015-01750.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`confidential. RPX, therefore, respectfully requests that the redacted portions of the
`
`Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112), the redacted portions of Exhibit 1098,
`
`and the redacted portions of Exhibit 2037 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 weighs heavily in favor of protecting RPX’s highly confidential
`
`information.
`
`As discussed in detail below, the Remand Hearing Transcript and the
`
`parties’ demonstrative exhibits, for which redacted, non-confidential versions are
`
`being filed concurrently herewith, reference sensitive confidential information,
`
`including information from the “Unredactable Exhibits” subject to Petitioner’s
`
`pending Fourth Motion to Seal filed on March 1, 2019 (Paper 97), from documents
`
`subject to Petitioner’s pending Fifth Motion to Seal filed on April 5, 2019 (Paper
`
`105), and from other sensitive documents that the Board has already sealed in these
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings in response to one or more previous motions to seal filed by
`
`Petitioner. 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 as narrowly as possible.
`
`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.
`
`A. Confidential Agreements
`The Board previously granted (in Paper No. 53) Petitioner’s motion (in
`
`Paper No. 27) to seal Exhibits 1020-1022, which are confidential agreements that
`
`detail sensitive confidential aspects of business relationships involving third
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`parties, including highly confidential and sensitive financial terms. These
`
`agreements, by their explicit terms, require RPX to keep them confidential (Ex.
`
`1020 at §§ 4 and 9.9), and the Board recognized that their sensitive details should
`
`be kept under seal to protect not only RPX but also third parties with whom RPX
`
`has confidential business relations. See Paper No. 53.
`
`On March 1, 2019, as part of these Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also
`
`moved to seal additional confidential agreements, which include highly
`
`confidential terms and aspects of business relationships and by their explicit terms
`
`require that RPX treat them as confidential, and moved to seal references in
`
`Exhibits 1073, 1094, and 1095 to such detailed information in confidential
`
`agreements. See Paper No. 97 at 5-6.
`
`References in the Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112), Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098), and Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits (Exhibit 2037) to the detailed information in the above confidential
`
`agreements, which RPX is obligated to treat as confidential, correspond to the
`
`following redactions:
`
` Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112) at pages 19, 23, 24, 33, 37, 39,
`
`40, 41, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 55, 59, 60, 65, and 72.
`
` Exhibit 1098 at slides 2, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 44, 61, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79,
`
`and 82.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2037 at slides 10 and 18.
`
`As explained in Petitioner’s Fourth Motion to Seal (Paper No. 97 at 6-7), as
`
`a result of the appellate proceedings, some of RPX’s previously confidential
`
`information, including that Salesforce was an RPX client when these IPRs were
`
`filed, is no longer confidential. See Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`
`Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2018). RPX is not seeking to seal such
`
`information. To facilitate the public’s interest in understanding the issues in this
`
`proceeding while safeguarding information of RPX and Salesforce that remains
`
`confidential, in the portions of the Remand Hearing Transcript and the parties’
`
`demonstrative exhibits that discuss the nature of RPX’s relationship with
`
`Salesforce when the IPRs were filed, RPX has not redacted descriptions of the
`
`services that RPX provides where those descriptions are no more detailed than
`
`what is provided in RPX’s public documents describing the services RPX provides
`
`to its members. However, the written agreement(s) between RPX and Salesforce
`
`remain confidential, so details included therein have been redacted and RPX
`
`requests herein that references to all details included therein be sealed.
`
`B. Confidential Financial Information
`The Board previously granted (in Paper No. 53) Petitioner’s motion (in
`
`Paper No. 45) to seal Exhibits 2018 and 2026, which are (or are derived from)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`confidential RPX business records that reveal detailed financial terms of the
`
`confidential agreements in sealed Exhibits 1020-1021.
`
`On March 1, 2019, as part of these Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also
`
`moved to seal Exhibit 1081 which is (or is derived from) additional confidential
`
`RPX business records that reveal detailed financial terms of the confidential
`
`agreements in sealed Exhibits 1020-1021, as well as Exhibit 1077 that is a subject
`
`of Petitioner’s Fourth Motion to Seal, and moved to seal references in Exhibits
`
`1073, 1094, and 1095 to such detailed confidential financial information. See
`
`Paper No. 97 at 7-8.
`
`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 into, or may enter into, confidential agreements with
`
`RPX. The details in these exhibits exposing the specific financial terms of RPX’s
`
`confidential business agreements are entirely unrelated to these IPRs, unnecessary
`
`for the public to access, and extremely sensitive.
`
`References in the Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112), Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098), and Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits (Exhibit 2037) to detailed confidential financial information, including the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`financial information disclosed in the foregoing financial reports and documents,
`
`correspond to the following redactions:
`
` Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112) at pages 37, 44, 45, 46, 47, and
`
`51.
`
` Exhibit 1098 at slides 8, 61, 70, and 82.
`
` Exhibit 2037 at slide 18.
`
`C.
`Post-Filing Confidential Communications
`The Board previously granted (in Paper No. 53) Petitioner’s motion (in
`
`Paper No. 27) to seal Exhibits 1023 and 1025, which are post-filing confidential
`
`communications between RPX and Salesforce that refer to terms of confidential
`
`agreements and sensitive, improper disclosures of confidential information by
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`On March 1, 2019, as part of these Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also
`
`moved to seal additional post-filing confidential communications between RPX
`
`and Salesforce that refer to terms of confidential agreements and disclosure of
`
`sensitive, confidential information in these Remand Proceedings, and moved to
`
`seal references in Exhibit 1090 to such aspects of post-filing confidential
`
`communications. See Paper No. 97 at 8-9. On April 5, 2019, as part of these
`
`Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also moved to seal references in Exhibit 1096 to
`
`such aspects of post-filing confidential communications. See Paper No. 105 at 7.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`References in Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098) to certain
`
`aspects of these and other post-filing confidential communications, including the
`
`names of individual participants in these communications and other non-public,
`
`confidential information, correspond to the following redactions:
`
` Exhibit 1098 at slides 72, 79, and 80.
`
`D. Confidential Business Information and Communications
`The Board previously granted (in Paper No. 53) Petitioner’s motions (in
`
`Paper Nos. 27 and 45) to seal Exhibit 2022, which is a confidential RPX record of
`
`business communications, and discussions thereof in Exhibit 1019.
`
`On March 1, 2019, as part of these Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also
`
`moved to seal references in Exhibits 1073, 1090, and 1095 to aspects of such
`
`confidential business information and communications.
`
`References in Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098) to certain
`
`aspects of these confidential business communications and other information,
`
`including the names of individual participants in these communications and other
`
`non-public, confidential information, correspond to the following redactions:
`
` Exhibit 1098 at slides 36, 62, and 64.
`
`All of the foregoing redacted information 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings, it is only at a high level of generality. The public has no need to
`
`access the sensitive details pervading these records.
`
`E.
`IPR Litigation Strategy
`The Board previously granted (in Paper No. 53) Petitioner’s motions (in
`
`Paper Nos. 27 and 45) to seal Exhibits 1024, 2018, and 2025, which are
`
`confidential RPX business records that reveal RPX’s highly sensitive IPR litigation
`
`strategy, including how RPX identifies patents to challenge via IPR, and
`
`discussions thereof in Exhibit 1019.
`
`On March 1, 2019, as part of these Remand Proceedings, Petitioner also
`
`moved to seal references in Exhibits 1090, 1094, and 1095 to certain confidential,
`
`non-public information disclosed in these confidential RPX business records.
`
`References in the Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112) and Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098) to certain confidential, non-public
`
`information disclosed in these confidential RPX business records and documents
`
`correspond to the following redactions:
`
` Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112) at pages 29, 56, 57, 69, and 70.
`
` Exhibit 1098 at slides 19, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 35, and 64.
`
`Disclosure of this information would provide an unfair advantage to current
`
`and future 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
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding, it is sufficient for the public to know why RPX filed these IPRs to
`
`further its own interests, and RPX has not redacted that information. However, the
`
`highly sensitive details of RPX’s IPR litigation strategy generally, revealing how
`
`and why RPX identifies other patents to file validity challenges against, 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.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`As demonstrated above, good cause exists for keeping the above-listed
`
`redacted portions of the Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper 112), Petitioner’s
`
`Demonstrative Exhibits (Exhibit 1098), and Patent Owner’s Demonstrative
`
`Exhibits (Exhibit 2037) under seal.
`
`Additionally, the redacted text in the Remand Hearing Transcript (Paper
`
`112) at 13:1, 62:19-20, and 63:1 corresponds to personal or identifying information
`
`that need not be injected into the public record here.
`
`F.
`Sealing This Information Is Consistent with Board Practice
`The confidential information in the five categories above is highly sensitive,
`
`and the harm to RPX of disclosure of the detailed information involved far
`
`outweighs any possible relevance to the merits of these proceedings and any need
`
`for the public to access the information. The Board has previously found good
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`cause to keep similar information confidential in this case (See Paper No. 53) and
`
`others. See, e.g., 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), 6-7 (membership terms and business
`
`strategies are highly sensitive confidential information), 7 (financial information
`
`can be sealed where reasonable 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 the instant motion, and Petitioner respectfully requests that the redacted portions
`
`of the Remand Hearing Transcript and the parties’ demonstrative exhibits 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 her knowledge.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`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 consented to the filing of RPX’s Motions
`
`to Seal but indicated that it may contest the propriety of some of the confidential
`
`designations in the production.
`
`
`Dated: June 19, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`RPX Corporation
`
`
`/Elisabeth Hunt/
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`I hereby certify that on this 19th day of June, 2019, I will cause a copy of the
`
`foregoing document, together with all accompanying documents, to be served via
`
`electronic mail, as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following
`
`counsel of record:
`
`Steven C. Sereboff
`Jonathan Pearce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 19, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`jpearce@socalip.com
`uspto@socalip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Patent Paralegal
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`13
`
`