`571–272–7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 65
`Entered: February 8, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VILOX TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Without Prejudice Motion for Entry of Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`
`Vilox Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) seeks entry of a modified
`
`version of the Board’s Default Protective Order. Paper 61 (“Motion”); see
`also (Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48771 (Aug.
`14, 2012)). Patent Owner represents that Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`has agreed to the entry of the proposed Modified Default Protective Order
`(Paper 81, Attachment A). Motion 2. Patent Owner submits a clean version
`of the proposed Modified Default Protective Order as Attachment A to the
`Motion and a redline version of the proposed Modified Default Protective
`Order as Appendix B to the Motion. Id. at Attachments A and B. For the
`reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied without prejudice.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`After considering the Motion and the Attachments thereto, we
`determine that Patent Owner has not shown that the parties’ proposed
`definition for “confidential information” contained in the proposed Modified
`Default Protective Order is appropriate. This proposed definition
`provides: “Confidential Information includes information (regardless of
`how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that would
`qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) or any
`other applicable rule of procedure, evidence, substantive law, and/or by
`agreement of the parties.” Motion, Attachment A, 2. The parties’ definition
`is overly broad, allowing any information to be deemed confidential
`information simply “by agreement of the parties.” Id. Moreover, the
`parties’ definition also is ambiguous with respect to “information . . . that
`would qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) or
`any other applicable rule of procedure, evidence, [or] substantive law.” This
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`
`language does not specify clearly the types of information that could qualify
`for the protections afforded by a protective order. In contrast, the Board’s
`rules clearly define “[c]onfidential information [as] mean[ing] trade secret or
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” 37
`C.F.R. § 42.2. These deficiencies negatively impact the Board’s strong
`interest in the public availability of trial proceedings. See Garmin Int’l v.
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, Case IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 1–2, (PTAB
`March 14, 2013) (Paper 34).
`
`Based on the above reasoning, the Motion is denied without prejudice.
`Patent Owner is provided leave to file a renewed motion for protective order
`within ten days of entry of this Order to correct the above noted deficiencies.
`The confidential version of the January 9, 2019 conference call (Paper 59)
`shall remain sealed for that time period, to provide Patent Owner the
`opportunity to file the motion.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Motion is denied without prejudice; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file a renewed motion for
`entry of a protective order within ten days of entry of this Order.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David M. O’Dell
`David L. McCombs
`Thomas Kelton
`John Russell Emerson
`Scott Cunning
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.odell.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`thomas.kelton.ipr@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.cunning.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Mansinghani
`UNIFIED PATENT INC.
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John K. Harrop
`DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
`harrop@vapatent.com
`
`
`4
`
`