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
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE AND PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`_________________________
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. Patent 9,253,239
`_________________________
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC’s
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE AND PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`On August 31, 2018, Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Protective
`
`Order in the present proceeding. See Paper 13; see also Ex. 1025 (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
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC’s Patent Owner Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.120 was filed on April 1, 2019 (“POR”) which cites to information and material
`
`disclosed in each of the documents referenced above. See generally Paper 38. Patent
`
`Owner also filed a public version of its POR with the confidential information
`
`contained therein redacted. See generally Paper 37.
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC’s Patent Owner Sur-Reply was filed on July 29,
`
`2019 (“Sur-Reply”) which cites to information and material disclosed in each of the
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`documents referenced above. See generally Paper 45. Patent Owner also filed a
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`public version of its Sur-Reply with the confidential information contained therein
`
`redacted. See generally Paper 46.
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner asserts that the unredacted POR and
`
`Sur-Reply contain confidential information. Accordingly, Petitioner hereby moves
`
`to seal the unredacted POR and Sur-Reply and to redact the confidential information
`
`from the public version of the POR and Sur-Reply. Patent Owner takes no position
`
`regarding the confidentiality of the materials asserted by Unified to be confidential,
`
`but does not oppose the motion.
`
`II. Requested Relief
`The POR and Sur-Reply reference and cite 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 the POR
`
`and Sur-Reply should be sealed because they contain confidential information.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.55, Petitioner moves to seal the
`
`unredacted POR and Sur-Reply and to redact the confidential information from
`
`Paper 37, the public version of the POR, and from Paper 46, the public version of
`
`the Sur-Reply.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`III. Good Cause Exists
`In deciding whether to seal documents, the Board must find “good cause”
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`and must “strike a balance between the public’s interest in maintaining a complete
`
`and 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 POR and Sur-
`
`Reply 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 Response
`The POR includes both confidential and nonconfidential information.
`
`Specifically, the POR includes confidential information provided in the sample
`
`Member Agreement (Exhibit 2008), the Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel
`
`(Exhibit 2004), and the Voluntary Interrogatory Responses of Kevin Jakel (Exhibit
`
`2013).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`This confidential and sensitive commercial information includes closely held
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`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 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 POR. Petitioner hereby requests that the unredacted
`
`version of the POR be sealed in its entirety and the confidential information be
`
`redacted in the public version of the POR.
`
`B. Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner
`Response
`The Sur-Reply includes both confidential and nonconfidential information.
`
`Specifically, the Sur-Reply includes confidential information provided in the
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin Jakel (Exhibit 2004).
`
`This confidential and sensitive commercial information includes closely held
`
`information related to Unified’s core business, membership terms, business
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`strategy, and business financial information and constitutes highly confidential
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`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 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 Sur-Reply. Petitioner hereby requests that the
`
`unredacted version of the Sur-Reply be sealed in its entirety and the confidential
`
`information be redacted in the public version of the Sur-Reply.
`
`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. The information subject to the instant unopposed Motion to Seal was all
`
`voluntarily produced under that protective order signed by both parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`VI. Request for Conference Call with the Board
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Seal,
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`U.S. 9,253,239
`
`Petitioner hereby request a conference call with the Board to discuss any concerns
`
`prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` /Roshan Suresh Masinghani/
`Roshan Suresh Mansinghani
`Reg. No. 62,429
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 11, 2019 a copy of the foregoing
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL 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
`
`
`
`
`/Roshan Suresh Mansinghani/
`Roshan Suresh Mansinghani
`Reg. No. 62,429
`
`
`
`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
