`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.1
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00199
`PATENT 7,092,671
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL PETITIONER’S REPLY AND
`EXHIBIT 1022 (PAPER 19)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` The owner of this patent is Uniloc 2017 LLC.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s December 21, 2018 motion to seal (Paper 19), seeking to seal
`redacted portions of Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit 1022, should be denied because
`Petitioner does not show good cause for sealing the entirety of the redacted portions
`of the reply or the exhibit. Indeed, Petitioner repeatedly redacts the identity of
`Unified members whose identities are easily determined by Petitioner’s public
`statements in this IPR. Petitioner’s effort to conceal the identity of its members is
`merely a continuation of its effort to conceal real parties in interest in its many IPR
`proceedings.
`There is a “strong public policy for making all information filed in a
`quasi-judicial administrative proceeding open to the public . . .” See Garmin Int'l,
`Inc. et al. Petitioner, IPR2012-00001 (JL), 2013 WL 8149381, at *1 (Apr. 5, 2013).
`The standard for granting a motion to seal is “for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`The moving party has the burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested
`relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). It must demonstrate to the Board “why the information
`sought to be sealed constitutes confidential information.” Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00001 (JL), 2013 WL 8149381, at *2 (emphasis added).
`1. Petitioner does not show good cause to seal the redacted portions of
`Mr. Jakel’s declaration.
`Petitioner’s motion does not show good cause to seal the redacted portions of
`Mr. Jakel’s declaration. The motion baldly states that the “declaration includes
`sensitive
`business
`information which
`Petitioner
`asserts
`has
`not
`been published or otherwise been made public” but offers no further explanation
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`concerning why the information is confidential. Further, it is not true that all the
`redacted portions of Mr. Jakel’s declaration are non-public. For example, the
`declaration repeatedly redacts information Petitioner has publicly disclosed in this
`IPR. See Paper 21 at 10-11 and Paper 2 at 2. This information is not confidential
`and is critical to a proper real party in interest analysis. The public has a significant
`interest in access to this information, particularly because Petitioner’s business
`model centers on challenging patents while concealing the identify of real parties in
`interest.
`2. Petitioner does not show good cause to seal the redacted portions of
`Petitioner’s reply.
`Petitioner also fails to show good cause to seal the redacted portions of its
`reply. Petitioner’s motion merely asserts that the reply “references and describes
`the content of certain confidential materials” without explaining why the redacted
`information is confidential. Like Mr. Jakel’s declaration, the reply redacts
`information Petitioner has publicly disclosed in this IPR. See Paper 21 at 10-11 and
`Paper 2 at 2. As explained above, this information is at the heart of a proper real
`party in interest analysis and is of significant interest to the public.
`To the extent Petitioner seeks to seal references to information and documents
`that were the subject of Petitioner’s earlier opposed motion to seal (Paper 16),
`Petitioner’s present motion should be denied for the reasons already explained in
`Patent Owner’s earlier opposition (Paper 17), including Petitioner’s waiver of
`confidentiality.
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00199
`U.S. Patent 7,092,671
`
`Board deny Petitioner’s motion to seal.
`
`
`Date: January 22, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett A. Mangrum
`Brett A. Mangrum; Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.120 was served, along with any accompanying exhibits not previously served,
`
`via the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) and/or e-mail to Petitioner’s
`
`counsel at the following addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic
`
`service:
`
`David Cavanaugh David.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Roshan Mansinghani roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`Jonathan Stroud jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`Michael Van Handel Michael.vanhandel@wilmerhale.com
`Ellyar Barazesh ellyar.barazesh@wilmerhale.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
