Trials@uspto.gov
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
