`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Date: June 3, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`RESEARCH INSTITUTRE,
`KWANGWOON UNIVERSITY INDUSTRY–ACADEMIC
`COLLABORATION FOUNDATION, AND
`UNIVERSITY–INDUSTRY COOPERATION GROUP
`OF KYUNG HEE UNIVERSITY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00368
`Patent 9,736,484 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Renewed Motion for Entry of Modified Protective Order
`and Renewed Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.54, 42.55
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00368
`Patent 9,736,484 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner’s first Motion to Entry of Protective Order (Paper 9) was
`denied because Petitioner had not shown good cause for entry of a protective
`order that imposed obligations on employees and representative of the Patent
`Office beyond the obligations included in the Board’s default protective
`order (see Paper 13 (Order denying Paper 9)). Petitioner’s first Motion to
`Seal (Paper 11) was also denied (Paper 14 (Order denying Paper 11)).
`Petitioner filed a Renewed Motion for Entry of Protective Order
`(Paper 16) with a new protective order (Exhibit 1051) and redlined
`comparison of the new protective order to the Board’s default protective
`order (Exhibit 1052). Petitioner also filed a Renewed Motion to Seal Patent
`Owner Preliminary Response and Exhibits 2002–2007 and 2012. Paper 15.
`Petitioner represents that Patent Owner has agreed to entry of the new
`protective order. Paper 16, 1. Petitioner also states that Patent Owner
`opposes sealing Exhibit 2005 and the discussion of Exhibit 2005 in the
`Preliminary Response. Paper 15, 1–2.
`
`DISCUSSION
`We have reviewed the Renewed Motion to Seal and the Renewed
`Motion for Entry of Protective Order. The deficiencies we articulated in
`denying Petitioner’s first Motion for Entry of Protective Order and first
`Motion to Seal have been cured. Good cause exists for entry of the proposed
`protective order now submitted as Exhibit 1051.
`We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper
`10) contains confidential information that should be protected under the
`Protective Order, and Petitioner filed a redacted version of Patent Owner’s
`Response that is available to the public (Ex. 1049). We are also persuaded
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00368
`Patent 9,736,484 B2
`
`that Exhibits 2003–2007 and 2012 contain confidential information that
`should be protected under the Protective Order, and Petitioner has filed
`redacted copies of those Exhibits as Exhibits 1043–1049. Additionally,
`Petitioner has shown good cause for sealing Exhibit 2002 in its entirety.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Entry of Protective
`Order is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Seal
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Exhibits 2002–2007 and 2012 is
`granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00368
`Patent 9,736,484 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Andrew R. Sommer
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`sommera@gtlaw.com
`
`Ashraf Fawzy
`Roshan S. Mansinghani
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`Fadi Kiblawi
`John F. Rabena
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`fkiblawi@sughrue.com
`jrabena@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
