Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 53
`Entered: April 1, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`____________
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`Confidentiality of Final Written Decision
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 53
`Entered: April 1, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`____________
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Joint Motion for Entry of Protective Order
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal
`Confidentiality of Final Written Decision
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5, 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`
`
`
`I. JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`The parties jointly move for entry of a protective order and have
`
`agreed to a Proposed Protective Order with some revisions to the Board’s
`
`Default Protective Order. Paper 24 (Joint Motion); Ex. 2001 (Protective
`
`Order); Ex. 2002 (version of Protective Order showing changes from the
`
`Default Protective Order). The parties submit that good cause supports entry
`
`of the proposed Protective Order, in order to protect the parties’ confidential
`
`information and promote efficiency in the resolution of their dispute. Joint
`
`Motion 2.
`
`We determine the proposed Protective Order is acceptable and that the
`
`parties have shown good cause for entry of the order.
`
`II. PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Petitioner moves unopposed to seal (1) Exhibits 1036 and 1037,
`
`which Petitioner designates as Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`under the Protective Order, and (2) Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 39). Paper 37
`
`(Motion to Seal). “Petitioner contends that these documents contain highly
`
`confidential and sensitive business information regarding Petitioner’s
`
`internal business operations, financial information, membership information,
`
`and other sensitive business information that could cause competitive
`
`business injury to or potential breach of contractual obligations by Petitioner
`
`if publicly disseminated.” Motion to Seal, 1. Petitioner filed a redacted,
`
`nonconfidential version of the Reply. Paper 38.
`
`The Motion to Seal does not contain sufficient information to justify
`
`the redactions Petitioner seeks. “[R]edactions to documents filed in this
`
`proceeding should be limited strictly to isolated passages consisting entirely
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`
`
`of confidential information, and . . . the thrust of the underlying argument or
`
`evidence must be clearly discernible from the redacted versions.” Paper 16,
`
`3. We are not persuaded that Petitioner followed our instruction. For
`
`example, Exhibit 1036 contains substantial information that does not appear
`
`to be confidential. Moreover, even where information is plausibly
`
`confidential, Petitioner has not justified such treatment in the Motion to Seal.
`
`Accordingly, we deny the Motion to Seal and allow Petitioner one
`
`week from the entry of this Order to file a new motion with the required
`
`information.
`
`III. OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED WITH RESTRICTED ACCESS
`
`Patent Owner filed its Response (Paper 28) and Corrected Response
`
`(Papers 48 and 49) with restricted (nonpublic) access and filed redacted
`
`public versions of each (Paper 27 (nonconfidential Response); Paper 50
`
`(nonconfidential Corrected Response)). Patent Owner filed exhibits with
`
`restricted access and no corresponding nonconfidential versions. Exs. 2011,
`
`2012, 2017. Patent Owner filed Oral Hearing Demonstratives with restricted
`
`access (Ex. 2017) and a corresponding, redacted public version (Ex. 2016).
`
`It did not file a motion to seal for any of those items.
`
`Our rules plainly require that “[a] party intending a document or thing
`
`to be sealed shall file a motion to seal concurrent with the filing of the
`
`document or thing to be sealed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Accordingly, the
`
`documents filed with restricted access will not retain limited access unless
`
`Patent Owner or Petitioner1 files the required motion within one week from
`
`the entry of this Order.
`
`
`1 We recognize that the information purported to be confidential is that of
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`
`
`
`IV. CONFIDENTIALITY OF FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`This Order is being entered concurrently with a Final Written
`
`Decision. The Decision is entered as a restricted-access version covering
`
`protective order material because it references information in and cites to
`
`several documents referenced above. No later than two weeks after entry of
`
`this Order, the parties shall jointly submit, as an Exhibit, a proposed redacted
`
`version of the Final Written Decision that will be publicly available. If the
`
`Final Written Decision may be made publicly available without any
`
`redactions, the parties may notify the Board via email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner. Therefore, we authorize Petitioner to file a motion that addresses
`the documents filed by Patent Owner, if the parties agree to proceed in that
`manner. If the parties proceed in this manner, Petitioner may file one
`motion to seal that addresses each of the relevant documents.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`
`
`
`It is therefore
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Protective
`
`Order is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed protective order filed as
`
`Exhibit 2001 is entered in this proceeding and shall govern the conduct of
`
`this proceeding unless otherwise modified by the Board;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may file a renewed Motion to
`
`Seal within one week from entry of this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the documents Patent Owner filed with
`
`restricted access will be made public unless Patent Owner or Petitioner files
`
`a corresponding motion to seal within one week from entry of this Order;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no later than two weeks from entry of
`
`this Order, the parties shall jointly submit, as an Exhibit, a proposed redacted
`
`version of the Final Written Decision that will be publicly available.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00067
`Patent 8,577,813 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason Mudd
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`Roshan Mansinghani
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Eric Buresh
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jim Glass
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Tigran Guledjian
`tigranguledjian@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Christopher Mathews
`chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Nima Hefazi
`nimahefazi@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
