DOCKET NO.: 2211726-00161US1
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`Jonathan E. Robe, Reg. No. 76,033
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Roshan S. Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Unified Patents Inc.
`By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Daniel V. Williams, Reg. No. 45,221
`Jonathan E. Robe, Reg. No. 76,033
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud, Reg. No. 72,518
`Roshan S. Mansinghani, Reg. No. 62,429
`Unified Patents Inc.
`1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Floor 10
`Washington, D.C., 20009
`Tel: (202) 805-8931
`Email: jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`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 FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`I.
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`In order to facilitate timely voluntary discovery by Petitioner Unified
`
`Patents Inc. (“Unified”), Unified proposes the entry of a Protective Order in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner Bradium Technologies, LLC does not oppose the entry
`
`of the proposed Protective Order. The proposed Protective Order is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit 1025. The proposed modifications are described below.
`
`A. Definition of “Confidential Information” in Paragraph 1
`
`To clarify the scope of the proposed Protective Order, the proposed
`
`Protective Order provides for a definition of confidential information. As set
`
`forth in the proposed Protective Order, “confidential information” “includes
`
`information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible
`
`things that would qualify for protection from disclosure under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 26(c) or under trade secret law.” Good cause exists for this
`
`modification of the protective order to clarify the types of information that the
`
`parties could consider subject to the proposed Protective Order.
`
`B. Access to Confidential Information in Paragraph 2
`
`The proposed Protective Order, agreed to by the parties, deviates from the
`
`Board’s default Protective Order in that it excludes a party (except its in-house
`
`counsel who appear as back-up counsel) and its employees from access to
`
`confidential information. Good cause for this change exists because of the risk
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`of inadvertent use of confidential information in unrelated litigation or
`
`proceedings that could cause competitive harm to Petitioner or that it has agreed
`
`with third parties would be maintained as confidential, such as its member
`
`agreements. None of the member agreements between Unified and its members
`
`are publicly available and each of the member agreements are held confidential
`
`between the respective parties. Unified accordingly seeks heightened protection
`
`for such materials disclosed in discovery in connection with this proceeding.
`
`These changes do not affect access to confidential information for employees and
`
`representatives of the Patent and Trademark Office who have a need for access to
`
`the confidential information.
`
`The proposed Protective Order also specifies that Patent Owner’s
`
`representatives in this proceeding include “Bunsow De Mory LLP, its attorneys,
`
`paralegals, clerical and other regular employees,” who accordingly will have
`
`access to confidential information under the proposed Protective Order. The
`
`proposed Protective Order, at the suggestion of Patent Owner, includes outside
`
`copying and exhibit preparation services in the definition of support personnel
`
`who are not required to sign an Acknowledgement to access confidential
`
`information, provided they have been informed of the terms and requirements of
`
`the proposed Protective Order by the person such personnel are supporting. Good
`
`cause exists for this change to clarify Patent Owner’s representatives.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`C. Challenges to Designations of Confidential Information in
`
`Paragraph 4
`
`The proposed Protective Order provides that any party may challenge a
`
`designation of confidential information at any time. The proposed Protective
`
`Order provides that the parties will attempt to resolve such challenge regarding
`
`confidentiality designations in voice to voice dialogue prior to contacting the
`
`Board. Good cause exists for this change, which was proposed by Patent Owner,
`
`to clarify the process by which a party may challenge a designation of confidential
`
`information.
`
`D.
`
`Effect on Burden of Proof in Paragraph 5
`
`The proposed Protective Order provides that nothing in the proposed
`
`Protective Order is intended to relieve a designating party of the burden of
`
`showing that material designated as confidential is in fact confidential. The
`
`proposed Protective Order further provides that Patent Owner is not restricted
`
`from identifying in public filings, based on non-confidential information, the
`
`identifies of any persons whom it contends are real parties in interest or in privity
`
`with Petitioner. Moreover, the proposed Protective Order provides that nothing
`
`in the proposed Protective prevents the Board from identifying the names of any
`
`parties it find are real parties in interest or in privity with Petitioner. Good cause
`
`exists for these changes, which were made at the suggestion of the Patent Owner,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`to clarify the effect on the burden of proof on either party and to clarify that certain
`
`information regarding the identity of other parties, based on non-confidential
`
`information, will not be deemed confidential.
`
`E. Redaction of Documents in Paragraph 6
`
`The proposed Protective Order provides that redacted copies of documents
`
`may be produced when the documents contain privileged matter, provided that
`
`the redactions are conspicuous. The proposed Protective Order also provides that
`
`any party can request additional information to assess claims of privilege on a
`
`reasonable number of redactions or documents withheld. The proposed
`
`Protective Order also provides that any party may challenge the propriety of
`
`redactions or the withholding of documents. The proposed Protective Order also
`
`provides that the parties will attempt to resolve such challenge regarding
`
`confidentiality designations in voice to voice dialogue prior to contacting the
`
`Board. Good cause exists for these changes to clarify the appropriate procedure
`
`for redacting documents. These changes do not affect access to confidential
`
`information for employees and representatives of the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office who have a need for access to the confidential information.
`
`F.
`
`Use in Subsequent Proceedings in Paragraph 7
`
`The proposed Protective Order provides that the parties shall use the
`
`confidential information only for this proceeding and not for any other purpose,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`with the exception discussed below. At the request of Patent Owner, the proposed
`
`Protective Order provides for an exception to the prohibition of use of the
`
`confidential information for any other purpose, namely, that confidential
`
`information may be used in subsequent IPR proceedings, subject to an equivalent
`
`protective order, that involve the same patent, in which there is a dispute
`
`regarding real party in interest or privity, or where it is contended that estoppel or
`
`a time bar applies as a result of IPR2018-00952. This change is also reflected in
`
`the Acknowledgement for Access to Protective Order Material, which is included
`
`in the proposed Protective Order. Good cause exists for this change to help ensure
`
`the continuing protection of confidential information that may be produced in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Changes from the default protective order are shown in Exhibit 1026
`
`attached hereto.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`2211726-00161US1
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`1009
`
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 239 Patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,924, 506 B2 to Levanon et al. (“the 506 Patent”)
`
`PCT Publication WO 99/41675 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`(“Hornbacker”)
`
`Reddy et al., “TerraVision II: Visualizing Massive Terrain
`Databases in VRML,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications
`March/April 1999, at 30-38 (“Reddy” with added paragraph
`numbers by Petitioner for ease of reference in the Petition)
`Declaration of Christopher Wilson (“Wilson Decl.”)
`
`EP1070290 to Cecil V. Hornbacker, III
`
`Printout of IEEE Explore citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`Printout of Google Scholar citations to Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`
`Cover page and authenticating declaration of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004)
`from British Library
`
`Cover page of Reddy et al. (Ex. 1004) from Linda Hall Library
`
`First Amended Complaint, Bradium Technologies, LLC v. Microsoft
`Corp., 15-cv-00031-RGA (filed March 14, 2016)
`
`U.S. Patent 7,908,343 (“the 343 Patent”)
`
`File History, 239 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent 6,728,960 (“Loomans”)
`
`Provisional App. 60/109,077 (“Loomans Provisional”)
`
`International Publication WO 98/15920 (“Austreng”)
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`Declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis (“Hall-Ellis Declaration”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,317,137 (“Rosasco”)
`Provisional Applications of 239 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent 6,119,179 (“Whitridge”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,401,113 (“Lazaridis”)
`
`Garland et al, Implementing Distributed Server Groups for the
`World Wide Web, Sch. of Comp. Sci., Carnegie Mellon U.,
`CMU- CS-95-114. Jan. 25, 1995
`
`Mac Addict Magazine, Issue 14 (Oct. 1997)
`
`Copy of Declaration of Professor William Michalson (“Wilson
`Decl.”) from Microsoft v. Bradium, IPR2016-01897
`Modified Protective Order
`
`Redline showing changes of modified Protective Order from the
`Board’s default Protective Order
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2018-00952
`2211726-00161US1
`
`I hereby certify that on August 31, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of
`each of the following to be served via electronic mail to the attorneys of record at
`the following email addresses:
`
`• Unopposed Motion for Protective Order
`• Updated Exhibit List
`• Exhibits 1025 and 1026
`
`ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`101 Brambach Rd.
`Scarsdale, NY 10583
`
`Michael N. Zachary
`Lauren N. Robinson
`Bunsow De Mory LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`
`Emails:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
