throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2016-00151
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`__________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF THE DEFAULT
`PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO SEAL PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`AND CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Reply
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`Patent Owner Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”) filed its Motion for Entry of the Default
`
`
`
`Protective Order and to Seal Patent Owner Response and Certain Exhibits Under
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54 (“Motion”). Paper 20. On September 30, 2016,
`
`Petitioner Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed an Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Entry of the Default Protective Order and to Seal Patent
`
`Owner Response and Certain Exhibits Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54
`
`(“Opposition”). Paper 23.
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition is based on mischaracterizations of the documents
`
`sought to be sealed. The highly sensitive information in its Patent Owner
`
`Response and Exhibits 2007 – 2011 and 2035 (“Certain Exhibits”) that Finjan
`
`seeks to be sealed concerns personally identifiable information, internal research
`
`and development efforts and strategies relating to its conception and development
`
`of the subject Finjan patent, as well as confidential information from a third party,
`
`Eitan Law Group. Motion at § I.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING FINJAN’S CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`
`Good cause exists for sealing Finjan’s confidential information regarding
`
`personally identifiable information and internal research and development efforts
`
`at Finjan, because Finjan has certified that the information sought to be sealed has
`
`never been made public. Motion at § II, Certification of Non-Publication. Indeed,
`
`the Board has routinely granted motions to seal where a movant certifies that the
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`subject matter it seeks to be sealed is non-public. See Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC,
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`IPR2014-00115, at 4 (PTAB Apr. 20, 2015) (Paper 93); Mylan Pharms. Inc. v.
`
`Yeda Research & Dev. Co., IPR2015-00643, at 3 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2016) (Paper
`
`52); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., IPR2014-00377, at 3 (PTAB Mar. 17
`
`2015) (Paper 64). Here, Finjan seeks to seal its Patent Owner Response and
`
`Certain Exhibits because the documents disclose personally identifiable
`
`information, including the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of
`
`individuals, and confidential research and development information, such as
`
`communications between Finjan employees.
`
`
`
`Finjan necessarily relies on this confidential information to establish the
`
`conception and development of the subject patent in order to predate the prior art at
`
`issue, and there is no need for such information to be disseminated to the public,
`
`especially the personally identifiable information of individuals. Thus, good cause
`
`exists for sealing this information.
`
`II. HARM TO FINJAN WOULD RESULT FROM PUBLIC
`DISCLOSURE
`
`As Finjan articulated in its Motion, allowing competitors to access such
`
`confidential information would significantly harm Finjan’s competitive position in
`
`the marketplace. Motion at § I. Finjan maintains strict confidentiality of its
`
`internal documents, which relate to research and development efforts at Finjan
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`because disclosing such information to the public would reveal sensitive
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`information relating to Finjan’s research and development strategies and
`
`competitive advantages. Simply redacting the Patent Owner Response and Certain
`
`Exhibits would not enhance the public record in this case, and would not outweigh
`
`the concern to Finjan that such confidential and proprietary information would be
`
`released to the public as the information solely relates to internal confidential
`
`business information. Furthermore, there is no public interest in having the
`
`personally identifiable information of individuals, such as phone numbers and
`
`email addresses, be part of the public record.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reason, Finjan requests that the Board grant Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Seal. In the alternative, Finjan requests guidance as to portions
`
`of the papers that Finjan may redact in order to prevent sensitive information from
`
`being disseminated to the public.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply
`IPR2016-00151 (U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that a true and
`
`correct copy of the Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Entry of the Default Protective Order and to Seal Patent
`
`Owner Response and Certain Exhibits under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54 was
`
`served on October 27, 2016, by delivering via electronic mail upon the following
`
`Jonathan Bockman
`Shouvik Biswas
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400
`McLean, VA 22102
`JBockman@mofo.com
`sbiswas@mofo.com
`FinjanPANMofoTeam@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/James Hannah/
`
`James Hannah (Reg. No. 56,369)
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 752-1700
`
`4
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Matthew I. Kreeger
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`MKreeger@mofo.com

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