`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Introduction
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`I.
`
`(“Petitioner”), hereby requests that certain confidential information in the record be
`
`expunged. This motion is timely filed prior to the information becoming public.
`
`See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Trial Practice Guide”), 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,761 (Aug. 14, 2012). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that certain papers and documents be expunged.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner hereby requests that the following documents
`
`currently either under seal or awaiting a decision under a motion to seal be
`
`expunged from the record as these documents contain Petitioner’s highly
`
`confidential business information:
`
` Exhibit 2008 – Petitioner’s Member Agreement
`
` Exhibit 2009 – Petitioner’s Subscription Form
`
` Exhibit 2013 - Petitioner’s Voluntary Interrogatory Responses of
`
`Kevin Jakel;
`
` Exhibit 2004 – Deposition Transcript of Kevin Jakel;
`
` Paper 19 – Patent Owner Preliminary Response (POPR);
`
` Paper 25 – Reply to POPR;
`
` Paper 30 – Sur-Reply to POPR;
`
` Paper 38 – Patent Owner Response (POR);
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
` Paper 45 – Sur-Reply to POR; and
`
` Paper 60 – Final Written Decision.
`
`II. Applicable Legal Standards
`37 CFR § 42.56 provides that following “denial of a petition to institute a
`
`trial or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge
`
`confidential information from the record.” Similarly, the Trial Practice Guide
`
`states that “[t]here is an expectation that information will be made public where the
`
`existence of the information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to
`
`institute a review or is identified in a final written decision following a trial.” Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761. However, the Trial Practice Guide also
`
`states that a party “seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information . . . may
`
`file a motion to expunge the information from the record prior to the information
`
`becoming public.” A party seeking expungement from the record must show good
`
`cause by demonstrating “that any information sought to be expunged constitutes
`
`confidential information, and that Petitioner’s interest in expunging it outweighs
`
`the public’s interest in maintaining a complete and understandable history of this
`
`inter partes review.” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 97 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015).
`
`III. Good Cause Exists For Expunging the Confidential Papers and
`Documents
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, the Board has granted Petitioner’s Motion to Seal the
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`confidential information contained in Exhibits 2008 and 2009. See Final Written
`
`Decision, Paper 60, at 76. The Board further denied without prejudice Petitioner’s
`
`Motions to Seal Exhibit 2013, Exhibit 2004, Paper 19 (POPR), Paper 25 (Reply to
`
`POPR), Paper 30 (Sur-Reply to POPR), Paper 38 (POR), and Paper 45 (Sur-Reply
`
`to POR). See i.d., at 76-78. However, the Board authorized Petitioner to file a
`
`Renewed Motion to Seal related to these documents as well as the Final Written
`
`Decision. See Order, Paper 62. The Board has not yet acted on Petitioner’s
`
`Renewed Motion to Seal (Paper 70).
`
`Redacted versions of the remaining documents containing confidential
`
`information have been filed in this proceeding. The following table summarizes the
`
`confidential documents (left column), with the corresponding redacted versions
`
`(right column):
`
`Sealed Document
`Exhibit 2008 - Petitioner’s Member
`Agreement
`Exhibit 2009 - Petitioner’s
`Subscription Form
`Exhibit 2013 - Petitioner’s Voluntary
`Interrogatory Responses of Kevin Jakel
`
`Exhibit 2004 – Deposition Transcript
`of Kevin Jakel
`
`Redacted Version of Document
`None - exhibit contains only
`confidential information1
`None - exhibit contains only
`confidential information
`Exhibit 1032 – Petitioner’s Voluntery
`Interrogatory Responses of Kevin Jakel
`(Redacted)
`Exhibit 1033 – Deposition Transcript
`of Kevin Jakel (Redacted)
`
`
`1 Exhibits 2008 and 2009 were sealed in their entireties. See Paper 60.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19 –POPR
`
`Paper 25 – Reply to POPR
`
`Paper 30 – Sur-Reply to POPR
`
`Paper 38 –POR
`
`Paper 45 – Sur-Reply to POR
`
`Paper 60 – Final Written Decision
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Paper 63 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of POPR
`Paper 64 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of Reply to POPR
`Paper 65 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of Sur-Reply to POPR
`Paper 66 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of POR
`Paper 67 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of Sur-Reply to POR
`Paper 68 – Petitioner’s Redacted
`Version of Final Written Decision
`
`As set forth in the Motions to Seal (Papers 18, 24, 33, 53, and 70), the
`
`confidential documents contain Petitioner’s confidential and highly sensitive
`
`information, disclosure of which would adversely harm Petitioner. The information
`
`reflected in the documents is confidential, sensitive commercial information,
`
`including closely held information, related to Petitioner’s core business,
`
`membership terms, and business strategy and constitutes highly confidential
`
`business information, as well as trade secrets. Disclosure of Petitioner’s highly
`
`confidential business information would provide Petitioner’s competitors and
`
`would-be business rivals with a roadmap for replicating Petitioner’s unique,
`
`valuable business model and would reveal contractual business information
`
`between two parties produced voluntarily under a joint protective order. Were
`
`confidential information produced voluntarily under a joint protective order to be
`
`disclosed publicly, a producing party would have little incentive to engage in
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`voluntary discovery of confidential information in proceedings before the Board.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Additionally, Petitioner is contractually obligated to third parties to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of Petitioner’s highly confidential business information.
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s findings and Orders in this case (Papers 60 and 62),
`
`redacted versions of these confidential documents have been filed publicly in the
`
`present proceeding.2 These redacted versions “maintain the essence” of non-
`
`confidential material contained within each of the papers and documents and thus
`
`allow the public to “maintain[] a complete and understandable history” of the
`
`present proceeding. Atlanta Gas Light, Paper 97 at 2, 3. Accordingly, the public
`
`interest would be served by maintaining the confidentiality of this information.
`
`As to the Final Written Decision (Paper 60, redacted version Paper 68),
`
`redactions of confidential information are minimal and do not inhibit the public’s
`
`ability to completely understand the file history of this proceeding. Thus, the
`
`redacted version of the Final Written Decision (Paper 68) “strik[es] an appropriate
`
`balance between the public policy for an open record and the legitimate need to
`
`protect confidential information from disclosure.” Atlanta Gas Light, Paper 97 at 4
`
`(citing RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00171, Paper 62 at 4–5) (P.T.A.B.
`
`
`2 As noted above, the only exceptions are Exhibits 2008 and 2009, which the Board
`
`ordered to be sealed in the entirety. See supra at 3, fn. 1.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Sept. 9, 2014)). The redactions in the Final Written Decision address real party-in-
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`interest issues and do not bear on the unpatentability of the claims. Indeed, the
`
`Board has previously relied on sealed confidential information in a final written
`
`decision without publicly disclosing that confidential information. See, e.g., Petrol.
`
`Geo-Services Inc. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2014-01477, Paper 71 at 62-68
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016) (final written decision redacting confidential information
`
`and finding no privity between Petitioner and third-party defendant in litigation).
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to expunge the confidential papers and
`
`documents, as well as the confidential version of the Final Written Decision (Paper
`
`60).
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board protect
`
`Petitioner’s highly confidential business information and expunge the confidential
`
`documents pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`
`V. Request for Conference Call with the Board
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Expunge,
`
`Petitioner hereby request a conference call with the Board to discuss any concerns
`
`prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` /Alyssa J. Holtslander/
`Alyssa J. Holtslander
`Reg. No. 64,026
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 17, 2020 a copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION was served via electronic
`
`mail, as agreed to by counsel, upon the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`101 Brambach Rd.
`Scarsdale, NY 10583
`Email: ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real Redwood City, CA 94063
`Email: mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`
`Michael E. Shanahan
`Email: mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Paralegal
`Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`