`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
`
`