`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00309
`Patent 7,224,668
`
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In conjunction with filing its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner, Cisco
`
`Systems Inc. (“Cisco”), also submits this Motion to Seal and to Enter the Default
`
`Protective Order. Pursuant to the Protective Order, Cisco moves to seal several
`
`exhibits filed in connection with its Patent Owner Response. Specifically, Cisco
`
`seeks to seal the entirety of: Exhibit 2008 (declaration of Wayne Ogozaly); Exhibit
`
`2009 (Cisco CoPP Specification); Exhibit 2010 (declaration of Laurie Wall);
`
`Exhibit 2011 (Cisco e-bill); Exhibit 2012 (declaration of David J. Thibodeau);
`
`Exhibit 2046 (Cisco’s Guidelines for Patent Attorneys); and Exhibit 2047
`
`(exemplary prior conception claim chart). Cisco also seeks to seal portions of the
`
`Patent Owner Response.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a), Cisco’s counsel attempted in good faith to
`
`confer with Arista’s counsel in an attempt to resolve any dispute regarding the
`
`entry of the Default Protective Order. Arista’s counsel did not respond to Cisco’s
`
`request.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`In determining whether to grant a Motion to Seal, the Board must find “good
`
`cause” and “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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a); 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14,
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`2012). As laid out in the Office Trial Practice Guide, the Board identifies
`
`confidential information in a manner “consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or
`
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Cisco has designated Exhibits 2008-2012, 2046, and 2047 as for “the Board
`
`and Parties’ Eyes Only.” The first group of exhibits (2009, 2011, 2046, and 2047)
`
`contains Cisco’s financial and technical confidential business information. The
`
`second group of exhibits (2008, 2010, and 2012) are declarations referencing
`
`Cisco’s confidential business information.
`
`As detailed below, portions of the Patent Owner Response and the above-
`
`referenced exhibits contain confidential information that fall squarely under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54 (a)(7). Accordingly, good cause exists for sealing these documents
`
`and granting this Motion.
`
`A. Exhibits 2009, 2011, 2046, and 2047—Documents containing
`Cisco’s financial and technical confidential business information
`
`
`
`The Board has good cause to issue an order to protect Cisco from disclosing
`
`the entirety of Exhibits 2009, 2011, 2046, and 2047.
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2009 details Cisco’s confidential research and development into
`
`routers and switches protecting against denial-of-service (DoS) attacks (hereinafter
`
`the “CoPP Spec”). The CoPP Spec discloses the invention contained in U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`7,224,668 (“’668 Patent”), and also contains other non-public technical
`
`information and project considerations, such as Cisco’s internal testing related to
`
`control plane policing. Cisco would be harmed if this technical specification were
`
`made public, because the document contains Cisco’s secrets related to widely used
`
`technology in the networking space in which Cisco competes.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2047 is a claim chart mapping the contents of the CoPP Spec to the
`
`elements of claims 7, 23, and 59 of the ʼ668 Patent. This document is confidential
`
`business information for the same reasons as Exhibit 2009 above.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2011 is Cisco’s invoice from Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds,
`
`PC (“Hamilton Brook”) for fees and costs incurred during the preparation and
`
`prosecution of the ’668 Patent. Cisco’s expenditures related to the prosecution of
`
`the ’668 application—or any application—is highly confidential, and reveals
`
`Cisco’s legal procedures and financial commitments, which would be harmful if
`
`revealed to third parties who could use that information against Cisco in the
`
`competitive marketplace.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2046 is Cisco’s Guidelines for Patent Attorneys. The document
`
`instructs Cisco’s outside counsel on every element of patent preparation and
`
`prosecution including legal and financial considerations. Making these guidelines
`
`public would harm Cisco because it would give third parties valuable insight into
`
`Cisco’s proprietary legal procedures for prosecuting patent applications and would
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`provide a tutorial on how Cisco derives value and competitive advantage from its
`
`IP.
`
`
`
`Consequently, disclosure of any of these Exhibits effectively grants third
`
`parties an opportunity to peer into Cisco’s proprietary financial or technical
`
`information. Thus, disclosure would confer competitive advantages to third parties
`
`at Cisco’s sole detriment.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibits 2008, 2010, and 2012—Declarations referencing Cisco’s
`internal confidential business information
`
`Exhibit 2008 is R. Waynes Ogozaly’s declaration. Exhibit 2008 reveals the
`
`confidential details of conception and reduction to practice of the ʼ668 Patent.
`
`Exhibit 2008 also references the confidential information disclosed in Exhibits
`
`2009 and 2011 and should remain confidential for the same reasons as discussed in
`
`detail in Part II.A.
`
`Exhibit 2010 is Laurie Wall’s declaration authenticating the CoPP Spec,
`
`Hamilton Brook Invoice, and patent prosecution guidelines. Exhibit 2010 explains
`
`how Cisco maintains its billing records, guidelines, and technical documents,
`
`which are kept confidential because exposure to third parties could result in
`
`significant competitive harm to Cisco. Exhibit 2010 also references the
`
`confidential Exhibits 2009 and 2011 and should remain confidential for the same
`
`reasons as discussed in detail in Part II.A.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`Exhibit 2012 is David J. Thibodeau, Jr.’s declaration. Exhibit 2012 reveals
`
`the confidential details of Mr. Thibodeau’s diligence after conception and before
`
`constructive reduction to practice. Exhibit 2012 also references confidential
`
`information disclosed in the invoices received from Hamilton Brook related to the
`
`’668 Patent (Attachment A). The information disclosed in Attachment A to Mr.
`
`Thibodeau’s declaration is substantially identical to the information disclosed in
`
`Exhibit 2011, and its public disclosure would harm Cisco in the same manner.
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`The information contained within the designated exhibits is used to
`
`demonstrate Cisco’s conception and diligence towards reduction to practice prior
`
`to the issuance of Moberg. The disclosure of such information is likely to cause
`
`significant harm to Cisco because it would grant competitors access to highly
`
`sensitive and proprietary technical information, commercially sensitive financial
`
`information, and business information relating to the design, development,
`
`management, and implementation regarding the claimed technology. Accordingly,
`
`the Board also has good cause to issue an order to protect Cisco from disclosing
`
`these portions of the Patent Owner Response for the same reasons.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF NON-PUBLICATION
`
`To the best of Cisco’s knowledge, the documents sought to be protected
`
`have not been made publically available.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016—00309
`
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`IV. PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Cisco respectfully requests entry of the attached Default Protective Order.
`
`Upon entry of the Default Protective Order, Cisco designates Exhibits 2008-2012,
`
`2046, 2047 and portions of the Patent Owner Response “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL.”
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Cisco requests that the Board seal and protect
`
`Cisco’s confidential information contained in Exhibits 2008-2012, 2046, 2047, and
`
`portions of the Patent Owner Response for at least the duration of this proceeding.
`
`Cisco further requests that the Board seal and protect the confidential information
`
`in these documents until such time as it receives and rules on this Motion.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`Lori A. Gordon (Reg. No. 50,633)
`Daniel S. Block (Reg. No. 68,395)
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`1 100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT:
`
`Default Protective Order
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`This protective order governs the treatment and filing of confidential information,
`
`including documents and testimony.
`
`1.
`
`Confidential information shall be clearly marked “PROTECTIVE
`
`ORDER MATERIAL.’’
`
`2.
`
`Access to confidential information is limited to the following
`
`individuals who have executed the acknowledgment appended to this
`
`order:
`
`(A) Parties. Persons who are owners of a patent involved in the
`
`proceeding and other persons who are named parties to the
`
`proceeding.
`
`(B) Party Representatives. Representatives of record for a party in
`
`the proceeding.
`
`(C) Experts. Retained experts of a party in the proceeding who
`
`further certify in the Acknowledgement that they are not a
`
`competitor to any party, or a consultant for, or employed by,
`
`such a competitor with respect to the subject matter of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`(D)
`
`In-house counsel. In-house counsel of a party.
`
`(E) Other Employees of a Party. Employees, consultants or other
`
`persons performing work for a party, other than in-house
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`counsel and in-house counsel’s support staff, who sign the
`
`Acknowledgement shall be extended access to confidential
`
`information only upon agreement of the parties or by order of
`
`the Board upon a motion brought by the party seeking to
`
`disclose confidential information to that person. The party
`
`opposing disclosure to that person shall have the burden of
`
`proving that such person should be restricted from access to
`
`confidential information.
`
`(F) The Office. Employees and representatives of the Office who
`
`have a need for access to the confidential information shall have
`
`such access without the requirement to sign an
`
`Acknowledgement. Such employees and representatives shall
`
`include the Director, members of the Board and their clerical
`
`staff, other support personnel, court reporters, and other persons
`
`acting on behalf of the Office.
`
`(G) Support Personnel. Administrative assistants, clerical staff,
`
`court reporters and other support personnel of the foregoing
`
`persons who are reasonably necessary to assist those persons in
`
`the proceeding shall not be required to sign an
`
`Acknowledgement, but shall be informed of the terms and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`requirements of the Protective Order by the person they are
`
`supporting who receives confidential information.
`
`3.
`
`Persons receiving confidential information shall use reasonable efforts
`
`to maintain the confidentiality of the information, including:
`
`(A) Maintaining such information in a secure location to which
`
`persons not authorized to receive the information shall not have
`
`access;
`
`(B) Otherwise using reasonable efforts to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of the information, which efforts shall be no less
`
`rigorous than those the recipient uses to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of information not received from the disclosing
`
`party;
`
`(C) Ensuring that support personnel of the recipient who have
`
`access to the confidential information understand and abide by
`
`the obligation to maintain the confidentiality of information
`
`received that is designated as confidential; and
`
`(D) Limiting the copying of confidential information to a
`
`reasonable number of copies needed for conduct of the
`
`proceeding and maintaining a record of the locations of such
`
`copies.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Persons receiving confidential information shall use the following
`
`procedures to maintain the confidentiality of the information:
`
`(A) Documents and Information Filed With the Board.
`
`(i)
`
`A party may file documents or information with the Board
`
`under seal, together with a non-confidential description of
`
`the nature of the confidential information that is under seal
`
`and the reasons why the information is confidential and
`
`should not be made available to the public. The submission
`
`shall be treated as confidential and remain under seal,
`
`unless, upon motion of a party and after a hearing on the
`
`issue, or sua sponte, the Board determines that the
`
`documents or information do not to qualify for confidential
`
`treatment.
`
`(ii)
`
`Where confidentiality is alleged as to some but not all of
`
`the information submitted to the Board, the submitting
`
`party shall file confidential and non-confidential versions
`
`of its submission, together with a Motion to Seal the
`
`confidential version setting forth the reasons why the
`
`information redacted from the non-confidential version is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00309
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`confidential and should not be made available to the
`
`public. The non-confidential version of the submission
`
`shall clearly indicate the locations of information that has
`
`been redacted. The confidential version of the submission
`
`shall be filed under seal. The redacted information shall
`
`remain under seal unless, upon motion of a party and
`
`after a hearing on the issue, or sua sponte, the Board
`
`determines that some or all of the redacted information
`
`does not qualify for confidential treatment.
`
`(B) Documents and Information Exchanged Among the Parties.
`
`Information designated as confidential that is disclosed to
`
`another party during discovery or other proceedings before the
`
`Board shall be clearly marked as “PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MATERIAL” and shall be produced in a manner that maintains
`
`its confidentiality.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`IPR20l6-00309
`
`Patent No. 7,224,668
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS was served electronically Via e-mail on
`
`September 29, 2016 in its entirety on the following:
`
`W. Karl Renner (Lead Counsel)
`Lauren A. Degnan (Back—Up Counsel)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`
`IPR40963-0003IP4@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`Lo ' A. Gordon
`
`Registration No. 50,633
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`Date: September 29, 2016
`1 100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`
`Washington, D.C.20005—3934
`(202) 371-2600