`571–272–7822
`
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: March 1, 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
`Granting Motion to Seal and Entering Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`On January 9, 2019, Judges Medley, Weinschenk, and Hamann held a
`
`conference call with counsel for Unified Patents Inc. (“Petitioner”) and
`
`counsel for Vilox Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”). The purpose of the
`
`conference call was to address Patent Owner’s desire for additional
`
`discovery relating to real parties in interest. A court reporter was present on
`
`the conference call, and Patent Owner has filed an unredacted (Paper 59) and
`
`a redacted (Paper 62) copy of the court reporter’s transcript.
`
`
`
`On January 22, 2019, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal the
`
`unredacted transcript. Paper 60. Along with the Motion to Seal, Patent
`
`Owner filed a Motion for Entry of a Modified Default Protective Order.
`
`Paper 61 (“Protective Order Motion”). We denied the Protective Order
`
`Motion without prejudice because Patent Owner did “not show[] that the
`
`parties’ proposed definition for ‘confidential information’ contained in the
`
`proposed Modified Default Protective Order is appropriate.” Paper 65, 2.
`
`
`
`On February 14, 2019, in response to the denial of the Protective
`
`Order Motion, the parties sent an email to the Board jointly requesting the
`
`entry of the “Default Protective Order” set forth in Appendix B to the Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48769–48771 (Aug. 4, 2012). Ex. 3004.
`
`The parties submit that the entry of the Default Protective Order would
`
`address the concerns we raised in denying the parties’ Modified Default
`
`Protective Order. Id.; see also Paper 65, 2–3. The parties also jointly
`
`request that the unredacted transcript (Paper 59) be treated as confidential
`
`pursuant to the Default Protective Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00044
`Patent 7,302,423 B2
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`After considering Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal and the parties’
`
`February 14, 2019 email, we determine that good cause exists for entry of
`
`the Default Protective Order, as constituted in Ex. 3005. We also find good
`
`cause for Paper 59 to remain sealed under the protections afforded by the
`
`Default Protective Order, as the redacted transcript (Paper 62) contains
`
`minimal redactions while largely allowing the public access to the
`
`arguments and information discussed during the conference. We also find
`
`that the parties have not shown good cause that Paper 58, which provides an
`
`overview of the January 9, 2019 conference and its purpose, should remain
`
`sealed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that the Default Protective Order, filed as Exhibit 3005, is
`
`entered in this proceeding;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 60) is
`
`granted;
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paper 59 shall remain sealed; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that limitations on access to Paper 58 by the
`
`public are removed.
`
`
`
`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
`harrop@vapatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`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
