`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: October 19, 2021
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ASETEK DANMARK A/S,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`COOLIT SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, SCOTT C. MOORE, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motions to Seal; Entering Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`On June 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.54. Paper 37 (“Petitioner’s Motion”). Petitioner’s Motion asks us to
`seal portions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`Exclude (Paper 38), and Exhibit 1034. Paper 37, 1. Petitioner’s Motion also
`asks us to enter a Proposed Stipulated Protective Order submitted by the
`parties as Exhibit 1035. Paper 37, 1.
`On June 14, 2021, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54. Paper 42 (“Patent Owner’s Motion”). Patent Owner’s
`Motion asks us to seal portions of Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its
`Motion to Exclude (Paper 43). Paper 42, 1.
`We determine that the parties have sufficiently identified how their
`Proposed Stipulated Protective Order departs from the Board’s Default
`Protective Order by submitting a marked-up comparison between those two
`documents. See Paper 13, 3; Ex. 1036. Upon review of the Motions, we
`determine that the parties have shown good cause for the proposed
`modifications to the Board’s Default Protective Order, with the following
`two clarifications: (1) Paragraph 2 of the Proposed Stipulated Protective
`Order shall not be construed to permit the parties to agree to limit the access
`of employees and representatives of the Office to protective order materials,
`and (2) the requirements of Paragraph 2(D) of the Proposed Stipulated
`Protective Order shall not apply to support personnel, administrative
`assistants, clerical staff, court reporters, or other support personnel of
`employees or representatives of the Office.
`We further find that Exhibit 1034 contains confidential information of
`Patent Owner and is appropriately filed under seal. We additionally find that
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 38) and
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Exclude (Paper 43) both
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`contain confidential information from Exhibit 1034, that the parties have
`filed public, redacted versions of both documents (Papers 39 and 44), and
`that the redactions in the publicly available versions are appropriate.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion (Paper 37) and Patent Owner’s
`Motion (Paper 42) are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
`(Exhibit 1035) is entered with the following two clarifications:
`(1) Paragraph 2 of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order shall not be
`construed to permit the parties to agree to limit the access of employees and
`representatives of the Office to protective order materials, and (2) the
`requirements of Paragraph 2(D) of the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order
`shall not apply to support personnel, administrative assistants, clerical staff,
`court reporters, or other support personnel of employees or representatives
`of the Office; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1034, Paper 38, and Paper 43
`shall remain under seal in the Board’s filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00825
`Patent 10,274,266 B2
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Eric Raciti
`Arpita Bhattacharyya
`Marta Garcia Daneshvar
`FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`Eric.raciti@finnegan.com
`Arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`Marta.garcia@finnegan.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lloyd Pollard
`Bradley Ganz
`GANZ POLLARD LLC
`lloyd@ganzlaw.com
`brad@ganzlaw.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`