`
`__________________
`
`
`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