`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`
`(record) Patent Owner
`
`IPR2018-01257
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) requests that the entire content of the
`
`exhibits 2049-2056, as well as redacted portions of Patent Owner CyWee’s
`
`Supplemental Submission of Information in Light of the Additional Discovery,
`
`filed November 7, 2019, be sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.55. Good cause to seal
`
`exists because the redaction seeks to protect certain sensitive, non-public
`
`information that a business would not make public.
`
`I.
`
`GOVERNING RULES AND PTAB GUIDANCE
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in an
`
`inter partes review are open and available for access by the public, but a party
`
`may file a concurrent motion to seal and the information at issue is sealed pending
`
`the outcome of the motion.
`
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 provides:
`
`The record of a proceeding, including documents and things, shall be
`made available to the public, except as otherwise ordered. A party
`intending a document or thing to be sealed shall file a motion to seal
`concurrent with the filing of the document or thing to be sealed. The
`document or thing shall be provisionally sealed on receipt of the
`motion and remain so pending the outcome of the decision on the
`motion.
`
`It is, however, only “confidential information” that is protected from
`
`disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7) (“The Director shall prescribe regulations …
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`providing for protective orders governing the exchange and submission of
`
`confidential information”). In that regard, the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760 (Aug. 14, 2012) provides:
`
`The rules aim to 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.
`
`* * *
`
`confidential
`identify
`rules
`Information: The
`Confidential
`information in a manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade
`secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
`information. § 42.54.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`The confidential information that Google moves to seal consists of non-
`
`public commercial agreements with a third party obtained from that party,
`
`pursuant to an order for additional discovery and under a protective order, in
`
`IPR2019-00143. Specifically, the agreemetns in Exhibits 2049-2056 are
`
`confidential commercial agreements between parties, and the redacted portions of
`
`the CyWee submission refer to, interpret, or quote content from the agreements.
`
`Further redactions in CyWee’s submission of citations to Exhibit 2014 are
`
`necessary to prevent cross-referencing. Finally, sealing of Ex. 2056 and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`redactions to the last paragraph are intended to preserve confidential material
`
`relating to agreements between defendants in litigation. Petitioner certifies that
`
`the full extent of this information has not been published or otherwise been made
`
`public.
`
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING THE CONFIDENTIAL
`INFORMATION
`The Board routinely seals confidential, internal and sensitive business
`
`information. See, e.g., Tandus Flooring, Inc. v. Interface, Inc., IPR2013-00333,
`
`Paper 60 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2014). Here, the redacted information consists of
`
`confidential, internal, and sensitive business information. Good cause exists to
`
`seal and keep this information confidential because the extent of the redaction is
`
`limited and because the information would be valuable to competitors and
`
`harmful to Google if made public. Accordingly, as in Tandus, the Board should
`
`seal and keep this information confidential.
`
`IV. PROTECTIVE ORDER
`The parties submitted a joint motion for a modified protective order,
`
`together with a draft order on August 13, 2019 in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/
`Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003)
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Motion to Seal was served
`
`by electronic mail on November 7, 2019, on all counsel of record at the USPTO
`
`having the following addresses:
`
`Counsel for CyWee:
`Jay Kesan
`
`jay@jaykesan.com;
`Cecil Key
`
`cecil@keyiplaw.com
`Ari Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com;
`Michael Shore
`mshore@ShoreChan.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`James R. Sobieraj jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`Andrea Shoffstall ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`Naveen Modi
`Chetan Bansal
`
`PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`Counsel for LG:
`Collin Park
`Andrew Devkar
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`MLB_CyweevsLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`Kristopher L. Reed HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`
`Dated: November 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Matthew A. Smith/
`Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003)
`
`5
`
`
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
