`
`______________________
`
`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 -
`
`