`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 68
`Entered: April 5, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 61) the
`Board’s Order Identifying Real Party in Interest (Paper 56) and Petitioner’s
`Request for Rehearing and Precedential Panel Review (Paper 62). Petitioner
`also filed a Motion to Seal (Paper 27) confidential information in Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 13), a Motion to Seal (Paper 31)
`confidential information in Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 29), a Motion to Seal
`(Paper 36) confidential information in Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 35),
`and a Motion to Seal (Paper 54) confidential information in the hearing
`transcript (Paper 52). According to Petitioner, Patent Owner does not
`oppose these motions. See Paper 61, 1–2.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14, the default rule is that all papers filed in
`such proceedings are available to the public. Only “confidential
`information” is subject to protection against public disclosure. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(a)(7); 37 C.F.R. § 42.55. The Board also observes a strong policy in
`favor of making all information filed in inter partes review proceedings
`open to the public. See Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01053, Paper 27, 3–4 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (informative). The
`moving parties bear the burden of showing the requested relief should be
`granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). To establish “good cause” for the requested
`relief, the Parties must make a sufficient showing that:
`(1) the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2)
`a concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there
`exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on the specific
`information sought to be sealed, and (4), on balance, an interest
`in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public
`interest in having an open record.
`Argentum, Paper 27 at 3–4; see also Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, v.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 46 at 2 (PTAB April 6, 2015)
`(requiring a showing that information has not been “excessively redacted”);
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a).
`Petitioner asserts that “[t]he redacted portions of the Order and
`forthcoming redacted portions of the Request rely on and discuss
`confidential aspects of Exhibits 1023, 1024, 1025, 2028, 2033, 2036, and the
`POR, which the Board previously found should be sealed, as well as the
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 13), Petitioner’s Reply (Paper
`29), Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 35), and confidential hearing
`transcript [Paper 52].” Paper 61, 5. Petitioner asserts that several potential
`harms would result from public disclosure of this information, including
`exposing Petitioner’s business model and confidential business activities.
`Id. at 6. Petitioner also asserts that disclosure of this information would
`provide Petitioner’s competitors and would-be business rivals with a
`roadmap of how to replicate Petitioner’s business model. Id. at 7. Petitioner
`further asserts that “the public interest will not be harmed by the sealing of
`the confidential business information.” Id.
`Based upon our consideration of Petitioner’s representations and
`arguments as well as the content of the documents sought to be sealed and
`the information sought to be redacted, we find that the information sought to
`be sealed is confidential, harm may result from the public disclosure of the
`information, there exists a genuine need at trial to rely on the specific
`information sought to be sealed, and on balance, the interest in maintaining
`confidentiality outweighs the public interest in having an open record. We
`therefore find that Petitioner has established good cause for sealing and
`redacting the identified documents.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Seal, namely Papers 27, 31,
`36, 54, and 61 are granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s requests to seal redacted
`portions of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 13), Petitioner’s
`Reply (Paper 29), Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Paper 35), confidential hearing
`transcript (Paper 52), Order Identifying Real Party in Interest (Paper 56) and
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and Precedential Panel Review (Paper
`62), are granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ellyar Y. Barazesh
`Ashraf Fawzy
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`ellyar@unifiedpatents.com
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
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
