Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 50
`Entered: September 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
` IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are common to the above proceedings.
`We exercise our discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each
`proceeding. The parties may not use this style caption without previous
`authorization from the Board.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 50
`Entered: September 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
` IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are common to the above proceedings.
`We exercise our discretion to issue a single Order to be filed in each
`proceeding. The parties may not use this style caption without previous
`authorization from the Board.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On February 5, 2021, Patent Owner filed confidential (Paper 15) and
`public (Paper 16) versions of its Response, confidential and public versions
`of various Exhibits cited in its Response, and an unopposed motion to seal
`the confidential versions of these documents. See Paper 17, 1–2.2 Because
`Patent Owner failed to show that the information it sought to seal was
`(1) truly confidential and (2) the minimum amount necessary to protect
`Patent Owner’s interest in maintaining that confidentiality, we denied the
`motion without prejudice to file “a Revised Motion to Seal setting forth,
`with particularity, the reasons why the information sought to be redacted is
`confidential and why the harm from its disclosure outweighs the strong
`public interest in having an open record.” Paper 30, 7–8.
`On May 7, 2021, Petitioner filed confidential (Paper 24) and public
`(Paper 23) versions of its Reply, confidential and public versions of various
`Exhibits cited in its Reply, and an unopposed motion to seal the confidential
`versions of these documents. See Paper 25, 2. Because Petitioner failed to
`show that the information it sought to seal was its own confidential
`information, we denied the motion. See Paper 31, 3–4. However, because
`Petitioner alleged the information it sought to seal was Patent Owner’s
`confidential information, we granted Patent Owner leave to identify and
`redact Patent Owner’s confidential information and to “file a motion to seal
`setting forth, with particularity, the reasons why the information sought to be
`
`
`2 Similar papers and exhibits have been filed in IPR2020-00905 and
`IPR2020-00906, although some of the paper and exhibit numbers differ
`slightly. For convenience, we refer to the paper numbers and exhibits filed
`in IPR2020-00905.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`
`redacted is confidential and why the harm from its disclosure outweighs the
`strong public interest in having an open record.” Id.
`On July 13, 2021, Patent Owner filed revised confidential (Paper 37)
`and public (Paper 39) versions of its Response, confidential (Paper 38) and
`public (Paper 40) versions of Petitioner’s Reply, confidential and public
`versions of Exhibits cited in its Response and Petitioner’s Reply, and an
`unopposed revised Motion to Seal. See Paper 36 (“Motion” or Mot.”). In its
`Motion, Patent Owner requests that we seal certain portions of its Response,
`Petitioner’s Reply, and Exhibits 1037, 1038, 2001, 2006–2013, 2018–2020,
`2022, and 2023. Id. at 1–3.3
`II. DISCUSSION
`The record for an inter partes review shall be made available to the
`public, except as otherwise ordered, and a document filed with a motion to
`seal shall be treated as sealed until the motion is decided. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. There is a strong public policy that favors
`making information filed in inter partes review proceedings open to the
`public. See Garmin International v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 34 (PTAB March 14, 2013) (discussing the standards
`of the Board applied to motions to seal). Consequently, any documents filed
`under seal shall have their redactions “limited to the minimum amount
`necessary to protect confidential information” yet still allowing “the thrust
`of the underlying argument or evidence [to] be clearly discernible.” See
`Paper 11, 2–3. The standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.”
`
`3 Patent Owner has filed confidential and public versions of Exhibits 1037
`and 1038, respectively, as confidential and public versions of Exhibits
`2201and 2202.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54. The moving party bears the burden of showing that the
`relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). That includes a
`showing that the information sought to be protected is truly confidential, and
`that preserving that confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in
`maintaining an open record. See Garmin at 3.
`Upon our review of Patent Owner’s revised Motion to Seal and the
`documents Patent Owner seeks to seal, we find Patent Owner has met the
`burden set forth in Garmin for sealing documents. First, Patent Owner does
`not seek to seal the entirety of its Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Exhibits
`1037, 1038, 2001, 2006–2013, 2018–2020, 2022, and 2023. See Mot. 1–3.
`Second, Patent Owner explains with particularity why the portions of these
`documents that it seeks to seal are both confidential and the minimum
`portions necessary to preserve Patent Owner’s interest in maintaining that
`confidentiality. Id. at 3–17. Accordingly, we grant Patent Owner’s revised
`Motion to Seal its Response (Paper 37), Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 38), and
`Exhibits 1037, 1038, 2001, 2006–2013, 2018–2020, 2022, and 2023.4
`Although we grant Patent Owner’s revised Motion to Seal, we remind
`the parties that any confidential information relied upon in a Board decision
`may be made public in order to maintain a complete and understandable
`public record of this proceeding. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 at
`21–22. In addition, any confidential information may be made public 45
`days after a final judgment in this proceeding. Id. A party seeking to
`maintain the confidentiality of such information may file a motion to
`
`
`4 See n.3, supra.
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`
`expunge the information prior to its becoming public. Id. (citing 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.56).
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal Patent Owner’s
`Response, Petitioner’s Reply, and Exhibits 1037, 1038, 2001, 2006–2013,
`2018–2020, 2022, and 2023 is granted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`IPR2020-00906 (Patent 10,255,479 B2)
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Michael Parsons
`Andrew Ehmke
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@ haynesboone.com
`jordan.maucotel@ haynesboone.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Neil C. Rubin
`Jay Chung
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`
`
`6
`
`
`
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
