`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY ON
`REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`
`
`Introduction
`On August 31, 2018, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Protective Order
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`I.
`
`in the present proceeding. See Paper 13; see also EX1025 (Modified Protective
`
`Order). Pursuant to the proposed modified Protective Order, Petitioner has produced
`
`voluntary discovery to Patent Owner including (1) a sample membership agreement,
`
`(2) voluntary interrogatory responses, and (3) a deposition of Petitioner’s chief
`
`executive office, Kevin Jakel. In addition, Petitioner produced to Patent Owner a
`
`sealed version of the Board’s Institution Decision in Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime
`
`Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883.1
`
`On December 3, 2018, Patent Owner filed its Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Preliminary Response on the real parties in interest issue (“Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`on RPI”) which cites to information and material disclosed in each of the documents
`
`referenced above. See generally Paper 30. Patent Owner also filed a public version
`
`of its Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI with the confidential information contained
`
`therein redacted. See generally Paper 29.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner asserts that the unredacted Patent
`
`
`1 A redacted public version of the Institution Decision was subsequently made
`
`available in that proceeding on November 27, 2018. See Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883, Paper 29 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI contains confidential information. Accordingly, Petitioner
`
`hereby moves to seal the unredacted Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI and to redact
`
`the confidential information from the public version of the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`on RPI. Patent Owner takes no position regarding the confidentiality of the materials
`
`asserted by Unified to be confidential, but does not oppose the motion.
`
`II. Motion to Seal
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI references and cites to certain material that
`
`Petitioner produced according to voluntary discovery. That material contains
`
`confidential, sensitive commercial information, including closely held information
`
`related to Unified’s core business. Petitioner submits that the unredacted version of
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI should be sealed because it contains confidential
`
`information.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.55, Petitioner moves to seal the
`
`unredacted Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI and to redact the confidential
`
`information from Paper 29, the public version of the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on
`
`RPI. Patent Owner takes no position regarding the confidentiality of the materials
`
`asserted by Unified to be confidential, but does not oppose the motion.
`
`III. Good Cause Exists
`In deciding whether to seal documents, the Board must find “good cause” and
`
`must “strike a balance between the public’s interest in maintaining a complete and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`understandable file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive
`
`information.” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36 (April 5, 2013).
`
`Here, the balance overwhelmingly favors protecting Unified’s highly
`
`confidential information by sealing these limited redactions. The information
`
`Unified seeks to protect has nothing to do with patentability, but rather involves
`
`Unified’s status as the sole real party in interest and relates to its confidential
`
`business information. For this reason, the public interest in having access to the
`
`unredacted Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI is minimal, while the public interest
`
`is well-served in keeping such business information readily available and
`
`exchangeable between parties based on voluntary discovery, without the fear of
`
`incidental public exposure of confidential business information.
`
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI includes both confidential and non-
`
`confidential information. Specifically, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI includes
`
`confidential information provided in the sample Member Agreement (Exhibit 2008),
`
`which contain agreed-upon confidentiality provisions. See Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply on RPI at iv, 6. Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI also includes confidential
`
`information provided in the Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel (Exhibit 2004),
`
`and the Voluntary Interrogatory Responses of Kevin Jakel (Exhibit 2013). See
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI at 2, 3, 4, 6.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`This confidential and sensitive commercial information includes closely held
`
`information related to Unified’s core business, membership terms, business strategy,
`
`and business financial information and constitutes highly confidential business
`
`information, as well as trade secrets. Disclosure of Unified’s highly confidential
`
`business information would provide Unified’s competitors and would-be business
`
`rivals with a roadmap for replicating Unified’s unique, valuable business model and
`
`would reveal contractual business information between two parties produced
`
`voluntarily under a joint protective order. Accordingly, the public interest would be
`
`served by maintaining the confidentiality of this information.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, good cause exists for sealing the confidential
`
`information reflected in the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI. Petitioner hereby
`
`requests that the unredacted version of the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI be
`
`sealed in its entirety and the confidential information be redacted in the public
`
`version of the Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply on RPI.
`
`IV. Certification of Non-Publication
`The undersigned counsel for Petitioner certifies the information sought to be
`
`sealed by this Motion to Seal has not been published or otherwise made public.
`
`V.
`
`Protective Order
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Protective Order on August 31,
`
`2018, on which the Board has not yet issued a decision. The information subject to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`the instant unopposed Motion to Seal was all voluntarily produced under that joint
`
`protective order signed by both parties. Petitioner moves under the agreed-upon
`
`Motion to Seal filed with the Unopposed Motion for Protective Order. Patent Owner
`
`takes no position regarding the confidentiality of the materials asserted by Unified
`
`to be confidential, but does not oppose the motion.
`
`VI. Request for Conference Call with the Board
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Seal,
`
`Petitioner hereby requests a conference call with the Board to discuss any concerns
`
`prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`Unified Patents Inc.
`
`By:/ Jonathan E Robe /
`
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Daniel V. Williams
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`
`
`
`Jonathan E. Robe
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`jonathan.robe@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave., NW. Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`Roshan S. Mansinghani
`Unified Patents Inc.
`13355 Noel Road, Suite 1100
`Dallas, TX 75240
`Tel: (214) 945-0200
`Email: roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on February 4, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy of
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239
`
`
`the foregoing Motion to Seal to be served via electronic mail to the attorneys of
`
`record at the following email addresses:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Email ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Email mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Jonathan E Robe /
`
`Jonathan E. Robe, Reg. No. 76,033
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`i
`
`