`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, INC., and DELL INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`________________
`
`Case IPR2018-002341
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cavium LLC (formerly Cavium, Inc.), which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-
`00403, and Dell Inc., which filed a Petition in Case IPR2018-01307, have been
`joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`Patent Owner Alacritech, Inc. (“Patent Owner” or “Alacritech”) hereby
`
`opposes Petitioner Intel Corporation’s (“Petitioner” or “Intel”) Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper 68, “Motion to Seal”). Instead of attempting to show “good cause” to seal
`
`portions of the Board’s June 4, 2019 Order (Paper 66, “Order”), Petitioner merely
`
`references undefined “commercial information” related to Intel and its customers
`
`and “Intel business practices”—none of which deserve protection either under the
`
`Protective Order entered in this IPR or by way of a motion to seal. Petitioner’s
`
`request to seal portions of the Order is a blatant attempt to hide its abuse and serial
`
`IPR filing practices from the public.
`
`Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any of the four factors required
`
`to show good cause to seal under this Board’s precedent, Petitioner’s motion
`
`should be denied and the default rule of public availability should control.
`
`I. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In an inter partes review, the moving party bears the burden of showing that
`
`the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A party moving to
`
`seal must show “good cause” for the relief requested. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). This
`
`principle and the detailed factors for showing good cause have been articulated in
`
`many decisions before the Board, including the informative decision Argentum
`
`Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 (Jan. 19,
`
`2018). See also Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, Case IPR2012-00001,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`Paper 34 (Mar. 14, 2013) and Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, v. PPC
`
`Broadband, Inc., Case IPR2014-00440 Papers 46, 47, 49 (April 6, 14, and 17,
`
`2015).
`
`In Argentum Pharm, the Board explained that “[t]he ‘good cause’ standard
`
`for granting a motion to seal reflects the strong public policy for making all
`
`information in an inter partes review open to the public,” and unlike in a civil
`
`action in district court, “the default rule is that all papers . . . are open and available
`
`for access by the public.” Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., Case
`
`IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3 (internal quotation and citations omitted).
`
`“Good cause” for sealing is established by a “sufficient explanation as
`
`to why” the “information sought to be sealed is confidential
`
`information”, a demonstration that the information is not “excessively
`
`redacted”, and a showing that, on balance, the strong “public[] interest
`
`in maintaining a complete and understandable record” is outweighed
`
`by “the harm to a party, by disclosure of information” and “the need
`
`of either party to rely specifically on the information at issue.”
`
`Consequently, a movant to seal must demonstrate adequately that (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.
`
`Id. at 3-4 (internal citation omitted and emphasis added).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`II. PETITIONER HAS FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE TO
`
`SEAL PORTIONS OF THE ORDER
`
`a. Petitioner failed to sufficiently explain why the information
`sought to be sealed was confidential
`
`A movant to seal must first show that “the information sought to be sealed
`
`is truly confidential.” Id. The confidentiality allegations made by Petitioner are
`
`conclusory in nature and are not supported by any specific evidence or even a
`
`sufficient explanation. Such allegations are terse, including three sentences total:
`
`The redacted version of Paper 66 is redacted to protect highly
`
`sensitive, commercial information related to the relationship between
`
`Intel and its customers and other internal Intel business practices. For
`
`example, Paper 66 includes specific details about and quotes from
`
`commercially sensitive agreements with Intel’s customer Dell. As
`
`such, portions of Paper 66 are designated Petitioner’s Restricted –
`
`Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Protective Order in this IPR.
`
`Motion to Seal at 3. Here, Petitioner has only asserted confidentiality over one
`
`example, the agreements between Intel and Dell. However, this general assertion
`
`does not explain why such agreements are sensitive and confidential and does not
`
`explain why each proposed redaction is sensitive and confidential. Indeed, many
`
`confidential agreements routinely include confidentiality clause, prohibiting parties
`
`from disclosing the agreements or certain terms of the agreements without mutual
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`consent, but Petitioner here did not identify any such clauses or even allege that the
`
`terms of the agreements are confidential.
`
`In fact, the two agreements have been summarized multiple times by
`
`Petitioner in both IPR proceedings and the District Court case. For example, in
`
`Intel’s motion to intervene, which is already of public record in this IPR, Intel
`
`stated that “Intel has agreed to defend and partially indemnify Dell as to
`
`Alacritech’s allegations based on Intel components incorporated into the accused
`
`Dell products.” Ex. 2051 at 1. In Petitioner’s Reply brief, it stated that “Intel also
`
`has no obligation to indemnify (and therefore no right to control) any Defendant on
`
`the 205 Patent because PO’s allegations for the 205 Patent are not directed
`
`exclusively to components supplied by Intel (e.g. operating systems).” Paper 35 at
`
`18-19. These statements are coextensive with corresponding language proposed to
`
`be sealed in the Order.2 See, e.g., Motion to Seal, Exhibit A, Order at 13, 15,
`
`Dissenting at 29-32.
`
`
`2 The only basis for Petitioner’s request to seal appears to be Petitioner’s prior
`
`designation of the agreements as “Petitioner’s Restricted – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”
`
`under the Protective Order entered in this IPR. Motion to Seal at 3. Obviously,
`
`designation under the Protective Order does not give Petitioner carte blanche to
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`b. Petitioner failed to prove that concrete harm would result
`upon public disclosure
`
`A movant to seal must also show that “a concrete harm would result upon
`
`public disclosure.” IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3-4. Petitioner’s allegation with
`
`regard to harm is not substantiated either. There is only one sentence in
`
`Petitioner’s brief mentioning potential harm and it is speculative. Petitioner argues
`
`that “[b]ecause Paper 76 contains certain confidential business information as
`
`indicated above, the public disclosure of which could cause Petitioner irreparable
`
`harm, good cause exists to seal portions of demonstrative exhibits as Petitioner’s
`
`Restricted – Attorneys’ Eyes Only information under the Protective Order.”
`
`Motion to Seal at 3 (emphasis added). This type of speculative statement has been
`
`found insufficient to prove concrete harm. For example, in Argentum Pharm. LLC
`
`v. Alcon Research, Ltd., the movant averred that disclosure “has the potential to
`
`cause” competitive harm. Case IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 4. The Board found
`
`that this “potential” harm is not an adequate harm that “will result in the event of
`
`disclosure.” Id. Similarly, “the public disclosure of which could cause Petitioner
`
`
`
`later move to seal or remove Petitioner’s burden of proof to establish “good cause”
`
`to seal.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`irreparable harm” is no more than a “potential” harm. Such an allegation, even if
`
`true, is insufficient to meet the concrete harm requirement.
`
`c. Petitioner’s public interest analysis is misplaced
`
`A movant to seal must also show that “on balance, an interest in maintaining
`
`confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open record.”
`
`IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3-4. Petitioner spent two sentences on its public
`
`interest analysis: “the information that Petitioner requests to be sealed was
`
`submitted only to rebut Patent Owner’s arguments regarding real party in interest.
`
`The information is otherwise unimportant to the merits of this proceeding, and
`
`therefore the public’s interest in having access to this information in minimal.”
`
`Motion to Seal at 3. Petitioner suggests that the Board’s real-party-in-interest
`
`analysis is a minor issue in this proceeding and of no interest to the public.
`
`Petitioner’s position is belied by Order itself. The Order is almost entirely about
`
`real party in interest, and it is the very reason the Board vacated the institution
`
`decision and terminated the proceeding. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, there is
`
`therefore a strong public interest in fully understanding the Board’s decision,
`
`including the entirety of its real-party-in-interest analysis. A complete
`
`understanding of the Board’s rationale would not be possible without disclosing
`
`the full record. Petitioner does not justify how maintaining the alleged
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`confidentiality outweighs the strong public policy that favors an open record and
`
`full and complete disclosure to the public.
`
`In addition, the Board has routinely held that information identified in a final
`
`decision should be made public. See Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research,
`
`Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 8 (“This Order shall place both parties on
`
`notice that a movant to seal in this proceeding shall assume the risk that its
`
`confidential information will become public if relied upon in a final written
`
`decision.”), Google Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC, Case IPR2015-00806, Paper 44 at 3 (“If
`
`the Board’s final written decision substantively relies on any information in the
`
`sealed exhibit, that exhibit will be unsealed by an Order of the Board”); see also
`
`Rule of Practice, 77 Fed. Reg. No. 157, Part V at Section I.E.6. (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(“There is an expectation that information will be made public where the existence
`
`of the information . . . is identified in a final written decision following a trial.”).
`
`Since the Board’s Order was a final decision terminating the IPR, it should be
`
`maintained public in its entirety.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deny Petitioner’s motion to seal.
`
`
`Date: August 5, 2019
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`Email: jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certify that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`
`SEAL was served on August 5, 2019 by filing it through the Patent Review
`
`Processing System, as well as by e-mailing copies to:
`
`
`
`Garland T. Stephens (Reg. No. 37,242)
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`intel.alacritech.ipr@weil.com
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 1700
`HOUSTON, TX 77002-2784
`
`Anne M. Cappella (Reg. No. 43,217)
`Adrian Percer (Reg. No. 46,986)
`Jeremy Jason Lang (Reg. No. 73,604)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 802-3141
`Fax: (650) 802-3100
`anne.cappella@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`jason.lang@weil.com
`
`David T. Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`RIMÔN LAW
`david.xue@rimonlaw.com
`karinehk@rimonlaw.com
`
`Christopher Douglas
`Kirk Bradley
`Derek Neilson
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00234
`U.S. Patent No. 8,805,948
`
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`kirk.bradley@alston.com
`derek.neilson@alston.com
`
`
`Date: August 5, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ James M. Glass, Reg. No. 46,729
` James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner –
`Alacritech, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`