`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2018-00043
`Patent 9,454,748
`__________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S
`SUBMISSION PURSUANT TO ORDER
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order Regarding the Motions For Protective Order
`
`and To Seal (Paper 33), Patent Owner Fall Line Patents, LLC files this response to
`
`Petitioner’s proposed redactions for Paper 30, Paper 31, and Exhibit 2009.
`
`I.
`
`THERE MUST BE GOOD CAUSE TO SEAL OR REDACT
`
`There is a strong public policy for making available to the public all
`
`information in an inter partes review. Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alcon
`
`Research Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018) (Paper 27 at 3).
`
`Therefore, the default rule is that all papers are open and available to the public. Id.
`
`Any party seeking to seal a document or redact information must show “good
`
`cause” as to why the default rule of public access should not apply. Id.
`
`To show “good cause” a party moving to seal must show: (1) the
`
`information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would
`
`result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on
`
`the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4), on balance, an interest in
`
`maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open
`
`record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54; IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER HAS NOT SHOWN GOOD CAUSE
`
`In this proceeding, petitioner proposes substantial redactions to Paper 30,
`
`Paper 31, and Exhibit 2009, but has not satisfied the above test for most of the
`
`information.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner has not shown that the information it seeks to seal is truly
`
`confidential. The vast majority of the redacted information relates to how
`
`Petitioner conducts business and communicates with its members, and Petitioner
`
`provides no explanation as to why this is confidential. Nor does Petitioner explain
`
`how it will suffer any harm, much less a concrete one, as a result of its disclosure.
`
`The information sought to be sealed relates to Petitioner’s business practices
`
`and whether Petitioner’s members are real-parties-in-interest to the IPRs filed by
`
`Petitioner. This information is crucial to determining whether Petitioner has
`
`satisfied its statutory burden to file an IPR petition and to what extent the statutory
`
`estoppel provisions apply. As such, there is a strong public interest in having this
`
`information available to the public, and Petitioner has not shown why any concerns
`
`about confidentiality outweigh the public interest.
`
`Prior to Petitioner filing its proposed redactions, Petitioner provided Patent
`
`Owner its proposed redactions, and Patent Owner provided Petitioner with a list of
`
`the information in Exhibit 2009 that Patent Owner would not object to redacting.
`
`That information primarily relates to certain individuals’ personal financial
`
`information and certain revenue, costs, and profit information for Petitioner. While
`
`Petitioner has not provided good cause for sealing that information, Patent Owner
`
`does not oppose Petitioner’s request to seal that information.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Because Petitioner has not shown good cause to seal the information it seeks
`
`to redact, Papers 30 and 31 should be made public in their entirety. Exhibit 2009
`
`should also be made public, but to the extent sealing is appropriate, it should be
`
`limited to the information pertaining to personal and private financial matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/Michael D. Ellis/__
`Michael D. Ellis
`Reg. No. 72,628
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on April 23,
`
`IPR2018-0043
`Patent 9,454,748
`
`
`
`
`
`2019, the foregoing document was served via email on counsel for Petitioner:
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`David O’Brien (David.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com)
`Raghav Bajaj (Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com)
`David McCombs (David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com)
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Jonathan Stroud (jonathan@unifiedpatents.com)
`Roshan Mansinghani (roshan@unifiedpatents.com)
`Jonathan Bowser (jbowser@unifiedpatents.com)
`
`
`__/Michael D. Ellis/___
`Michael D. Ellis
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 72,628
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
