`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00219
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`_________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Petitioner Apple Inc. respectfully
`
`requests that the Board seal Petitioner’s Reply, Exhibits 1250 (IRA.cpp with
`
`metadata), 1251 (IRA.h with metadata), 1252 (IRAsimu.cpp with metadata), 1253
`
`(IRAsimu.cpp with metadata), 1254 (GetInter.cpp with metadata), 1255 (excerpts
`
`from the deposition of Dr. Hui Jin (Case No. 16-cv-3714)), and 1263 (Transcript of
`
`the Deposition of Dr. Hui Jin).
`
`REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Although “the default rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review are
`
`open and available for access by the public,” a party may file a motion with the
`
`Board to seal confidential information that is protected from disclosure. Garmin v.
`
`Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 36. “The standard for granting a motion to seal
`
`is ‘for good cause.’” Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R § 42.54). The Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012), states that the “rules
`
`identify confidential information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure (‘FRCP’) 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade
`
`secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.”
`
`The parties have conferred and agreed to the provisions of the Protective
`
`Order set forth in Exhibit 1269, and have stipulated to be bound to the terms set forth
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`therein. Exhibit 1270 shows the proposed modifications from the Board’s Default
`
`Protective Order, to which the parties have stipulated, in redline. The Protective
`
`Order provides:
`
`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
`
`confidential and should not be made available to the public. The
`
`nonconfidential 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.
`
`Ex. 1269 at 4.
`
`
`
`Petitioner has filed its Petitioner’s Reply under seal, as well a
`
`publicly-available redacted version of its Reply. The redacted portions of
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`Petitioner’s Reply contain information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL –
`
`ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by Patent Owner, which Patent Owner claims are
`
`“confidential research, development, or commercial information” pursuant to FRCP
`
`26(c)(1)(G).
`
`
`
`Exhibits 1250-1254 are source code files with associated metadata designated
`
`as “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by Patent Owner, which
`
`Patent Owner claims are “confidential research, development, or commercial
`
`information” pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1)(G). Furthermore, Exhibits 1250-1254 were
`
`designated “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by Patent Owner in
`
`the district court litigation California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., No.
`
`2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016).
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1255 is an excerpt from the deposition transcript of Dr. Hui Jin in the
`
`district court litigation California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., No.
`
`2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016), designated as
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by Patent Owner, which Patent
`
`Owner claims is “confidential research, development, or commercial information”
`
`pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1)(G). Furthermore, Exhibit 1255 was designated
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL” by Patent Owner in the district court litigation California Inst.
`
`of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-cv-03714-GW-AGR (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00219
`Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`
`
`Petitioner has filed its Exhibit 1263 under seal, as well a publicly-available
`
`redacted version of Exhibit 1263. The redacted portions of Exhibit 1263 contain
`
`information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” by
`
`Patent Owner, which Patent Owner claims are “confidential research, development,
`
`or commercial information” pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1)(G).
`
`
`
`Petitioner therefore respectfully requests that the aforementioned materials
`
`remain under seal pursuant to the Protective Order.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 7, 2018
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`
`
`Richard A. Goldenberg (No. 38,895)
`Dominic A. Massa (No. 44,905)
`Michael H. Smith (No. 71,190)
`Mark D. Selwyn (pro hac vice)
`James M. Dowd (pro hac vice)
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
