throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________
`
`RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS, LP
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`LEGO A/S
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01187
`
`Patent 8,894,066
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROPOSED PROTECTIVE
`ORDER AND TO SEAL AN EXHIBIT TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`LIST ADDITIONAL PARTIES AS REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST UNDER
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 AND 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioner, Rubicon Communications, LP
`
`hereby moves for entry of its Proposed Protective Order (attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`A) and to seal portions of an exhibit (“Subject Exhibit”) to Petitioner’s Motion To
`
`List Additional Parties As Real Parties-In-Interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`Filing/Exhibit
`
`Content
`
`Exhibit 1033
`
`Bill of Sale and
`Assignment and
`Assumption Agreement
`
`Confidential
`Information
`Contains highly
`confidential information
`regarding business
`strategy of additional real
`parties-in-interest to this
`proceeding. This
`disclosure is also covered
`under a Standing
`Protective Order in
`litigation in the U.S.
`District Court for the
`District of Connecticut.
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING CERTAIN
`CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`The Board’s standards for granting motions to seal are discussed in Garmin
`
`International v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper 34 at 4-
`
`5, Mar. 14, 2013). The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief
`
`requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In particular:
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The rules aim to 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.
`*
`*
`*
`Confidential Information: The rules identify 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.
`Office Trial and Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Petitioner’s Motion To List Additional Parties As Real Parties-In-Interest and the
`
`Subject Exhibit contain confidential information requiring that they be designated
`
`as “PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY” under the
`
`Proposed Protective Order. The Subject Exhibit was produced by Petitioner under
`
`the Standing Protective Order (attached hereto as Exhibit B) in concurrent litigation
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut between Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owners: Lego Systems, A/S v. Rubicon Communications, LP DBA
`
`SmallWorks and SmallWorks, LLC, Civil Action No 3:15-CV-00823-VLB (“D.
`
`Conn. Litigation”). Due to the fact that the Subject Exhibit reflects that confidential
`
`business strategy of Petitioner and Petitioner’s members, the Subject Exhibit was
`
`designated “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” in the D. Conn. Litigation. Patent
`
`Owner has not contested this designation. As a result, good cause exists in that the
`
`information at issue has already been designated and accepted as “Attorneys’ Eyes
`
`Only,” and unity between this action and the D. Conn. Litigation is desired.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, granting this Motion would not prejudice or impact this underlying
`
`proceeding. The Subject Exhibit is offered to show the relationship between
`
`Rubicon Communications, LLC and SmallWorks, LLC. Because, however,
`
`Petitioner seeks to add both parties as RPIs to this proceeding, the terms of this
`
`relationship are moot for the purposes of this proceeding. Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits that the public’s small interest in accessing the Subject Exhibit is
`
`outweighed by the competitive harm to Rubicon Communications, LLC and
`
`SmallWorks, LLC that would result if the Subject Exhibit were made public.
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`Petitioner, in good faith, met and conferred with Patent Owner regarding the
`
`scope of the Proposed Protective Order. Patent Owner does not object to the entry
`
`of the Proposed Protective Order.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`Because good cause exists to warrant entry of the Proposed Protective Order and
`
`to seal the Subject Exhibit to Petitioner’s Motion To List Additional Parties As Real
`
`Parties-In-Interest, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Motion to Seal be
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Date: March 3, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Anthony M. Petro /
`Anthony M. Petro
`Registration No. 59,391
`tpetro@intprop.com
`MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN,
`KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
`1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
`Building 2, Suite 300
`Austin, Texas 78746
`(512) 853-8883
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that completed and
`
`entire copies of Petitioner’s Motion For Entry Of Proposed Protective Order And To
`
`Seal An Exhibit To Petitioner’s Motion To List Additional Parties As Real Parties-
`
`In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 And 42.5 were served on the following counsel
`
`of record via Federal Express Standard Overnight on March 3, 2017.
`
`/Anthony M. Petro /
`Anthony M. Petro
`Registration No. 59,391
`tpetro@intprop.com
`MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN,
`KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
`1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
`Building 2, Suite 300
`Austin, Texas 78746
`(512) 853-8883
`
`Andrew M. Riddles
`Elizabeth A. Alquist
`Howard Grossman
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

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