`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: May 8, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
`Petitioner’s Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.114 and 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`There are three Motions to Seal pending in this case. Papers 20, 35,
`46. The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37
`C.F.R. § 42.54. The party moving to seal bears the burden of proof of
`showing entitlement to the requested relief, and establishing that information
`sought to be sealed is confidential information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). For
`the reasons stated below, the Motions to Seal are granted.
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
`Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 20
`(“PO Motion” or “PO Mot.”) portions of Patent Owner’s Confidential Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 18) and seven exhibits. PO Mot. 1. Arista
`Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) does not oppose the Motion. Patent Owner
`also seeks entry of the Default Protective Order. PO Mot. 6.
`Patent Owner asserts that Exhibits 2009, 2011, 2046, and 2047
`contain highly sensitive financial and technical confidential business
`information. PO Mot. 2–4. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibits 2009 and
`2047 detail confidential research and development, and internal testing, and
`that Patent Owner would be harmed if this information were made public.
`Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 2011 reveals highly
`confidential details regarding its legal procedures and financial
`commitments. Id. at 3. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 2046 contains
`guidelines for outside counsel that, if made public, would harm Patent
`Owner by giving third parties valuable insight into Patent Owner’s
`proprietary legal procedures.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner asserts that Exhibits 2008, 2010, and 2012 are
`declarations referencing its confidential business information. PO Mot. 2,
`4–5. Patent Owner asserts that Exhibit 2008 addresses the confidential
`information disclosed in Exhibits 2009 and 2011, that Exhibit 2010 contains
`confidential testimony regarding how Patent Owner maintains its billing
`records, guidelines, and technical documents, and that Exhibit 2012
`addresses the confidential information disclosed in Exhibit 2011. Id.
`Patent Owner also seeks to seal portions of its Confidential Patent
`Owner Response because it reveals confidential information from the above
`described exhibits. PO Mot. 5.
`Upon considering the contents of the confidential Exhibits and of
`Patent Owner’s Response, along with Patent Owner’s representations as to
`the confidentiality of the information contained in these papers, we
`determine that Patent Owner has shown good cause for sealing these
`documents.
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal its Reply
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Seal (Paper 35, “Pet. Reply
`Mot.”) portions of its Reply that discuss substantively materials designated
`by Patent Owner as for “Board and Parties’ Eyes Only” under the Default
`Protective Order. Pet. Reply Mot. 2. Petitioner asserts that, “[b]ecause the
`Patent Owner Response presents arguments based on information that Patent
`Owner has designated confidential, [Petitioner]’s Reply to the Patent Owner
`Response necessarily also contains information subject to Patent Owner’s
`confidentiality designations.” Id. at 3. Accordingly, “Petitioner moves the
`Board to seal those portions its Reply that refer to materials designated by
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`Patent Owner as for ‘the Board and Parties’ Eyes Only.’” Id. Patent Owner
`does not oppose the Motion. Id. at 2.
`Upon considering Petitioner’s Reply, we determine that Petitioner has
`shown good cause for sealing this document.
`
`
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal its Demonstratives
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Seal (Paper 46, “Pet. Demo.
`Mot.”) portions of its demonstratives (Exhibit 1029) that discuss
`substantively materials designated by Patent Owner as for “Board and
`Parties’ Eyes Only” under the Default Protective Order. Pet. Demo. Mot. 2.
`Patent Owner does not oppose the Motion. Id.
`Upon considering Petitioner’s Demonstratives, we determine that
`Petitioner has shown good cause for sealing this document.
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`An expectation exists that confidential information will be made
`public where the existence of the information is identified in a final written
`decision following a trial. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide at 77 Fed.
`Reg. 48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012)). “[A]fter final judgment . . . , a party
`may file a motion to expunge confidential information from the record.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`The motions to seal are granted with the understanding that, if a final
`written decision substantively relies on any information in a sealed
`document, or if the information otherwise becomes publically available, the
`information may be unsealed by an Order of the Board or may become
`public if the parties do not to move timely to expunge it pursuant to
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56. See also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide at 77 Fed.
`Reg at 48,761 ¶ 6 (Expungement of Confidential Information).
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Default Protective Order is entered and governs
`the treatment and filing of confidential information in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal (Paper
`20) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 2008–2012, 2046, and 2047 and
`Patent Owner’s Confidential Patent Owner Response (Paper 18) are sealed
`and designated Board and Parties’ Eyes Only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Confidential Reply (Paper
`33) is sealed and designated Board and Parties’ Eyes Only; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that 1029, titled “Petitioner’s Demonstrative
`Exhibits – CONFIDENTIAL,” is sealed and designated Board and Parties’
`Eyes Only.
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Lauren Degnan
`Adam Shartzer
`Steven Katz
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`IPR40963-006IP3@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`shartzer@fr.com
`katz@fr.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Robert G. Sterne
`Jon E. Wright
`Daniel Block
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`dblock-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`