`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY WEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case no. IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED FOURTH MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) files this Motion to Seal the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 29) (“Reply”) filed August 29, 2022. Concurrent with this
`
`Motion, Petitioner submits a redacted copy of the Reply as Paper 30. Petitioner
`
`requests that the redacted portions of the Reply be sealed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.54.
`
`Good cause exists because these portions contain sensitive, non-public information.
`
`The redacted portions of the Reply discuss confidential materials and
`
`information contained in Exhibits 1023-1025, 1029, 2033, and 2036, and Patent
`
`Owner’s Response (Paper 23) (POR).
`
`Petitioner previously filed a motion for entry of a Protective Order in this
`
`proceeding and to seal Exhibits 1023-1025 and 1029. Paper 10 (first Motion to Seal).
`
`Petitioner has also filed a second Motion to Seal regarding confidential information
`
`in the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 23) and Exhibits 2028, 2030, 2032, 2033,
`
`2034, and 2036, and a third Motion to Seal regarding confidential information in the
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 13). See Papers 24, 27. The Board
`
`granted Petitioner’s first and second Motions to Seal. Paper 26. The Board has yet
`
`to rule on Petitioner’s third Motion to Seal. Patent Owner did not oppose entry of
`
`the Protective Order or any of the Motions to Seal. Counsel for Patent Owner has
`
`executed the Protective Order.
`
`
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has conferred with Patent Owner through counsel,
`
`and Patent Owner does not oppose this Motion to Seal.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`
`I. MOTION TO SEAL
`In an inter partes review, it is the default rule that all filings are publicly
`
`available. 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Where a paper contains
`
`confidential information, a petitioner may file “a motion to seal with a proposed
`
`protective order as to the confidential information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.55; see also 35
`
`U.S.C. § 326(a)(1). A motion to seal and to enter a protective order will only be
`
`granted if the movant demonstrates a showing of “good cause.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54(a). The Board has established a four-pronged test that must be met for a
`
`motion to seal to be granted:
`
`a movant to seal must demonstrate adequately 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 Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 4
`
`(PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (informative) (citing to inter alia 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a)). This
`
`Motion to Seal satisfies the four-pronged test in Argentum.
`
`First, the redacted portions of the Reply contain non-public, highly
`
`confidential proprietary business information (“Information”)—information about
`
`Unified’s members and information regarding Unified’s business operations—that
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`Petitioner maintains as confidential trade secrets and that is found in Exhibits 1023-
`
`1025, 1029, 2033, and 2036, and the POR which the Board previously found
`
`properly sealed. Paper 26. This Information includes confidential, sensitive
`
`commercial information, including closely held information related to Unified’s core
`
`business. Unified guards such information closely to protect its members as well as
`
`its own business from copying by others. Unified has not made, and does not intend
`
`to make, this information publicly available and such information is subject to
`
`confidentiality obligations to third parties not involved in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Second, several potential harms would occur if this Information were to be
`
`disclosed. For example, disclosure of this Information to the public would expose
`
`Unified’s business model and confidential business activities. Additionally, Unified
`
`has a contractual obligation with third parties not involved in this proceeding to
`
`maintain the confidentiality of the Information. Without an assurance that the
`
`Information will be protected, Unified’s members wishing to remain confidential
`
`may be adversely affected. Disclosure of this Information to the public will not only
`
`harm Unified, as discussed above, but would also harm third parties not involved in
`
`this proceeding. Further, the public interest will not be harmed by sealing of the
`
`confidential business Information.
`
`
`
`Third, Patent Owner asserts that certain entities are real parties-in-interest to
`
`this proceeding in its Patent Owner Response. See Paper 23, 1, 14-26. Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`disputes these assertions and the Reply relies on confidential information in Exhibits
`
`1023-1025, 1029, 2033, and 2036, and the POR, which the Board previously found
`
`should be sealed, to resolve this dispute. Paper 26
`
`
`
`Fourth, on balance, the interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the
`
`public interest in having an entirely open record and the redacted portions of the
`
`Reply should be sealed. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`motion to seal.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING THE REPLY
`In deciding whether to seal documents, the Board must find “good cause,” and
`
`must “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.” Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001, Paper 36 (April 5, 2013).
`
`The redacted portions of the Reply rely on and discuss confidential aspects of
`
`Exhibits 1023-1025, 1029, 2033, and 2036, and the POR, which the Board
`
`previously found should be sealed. Paper 26. The redacted version of the Reply is
`
`being filed concurrently as Paper 30.
`
`Here, the balance overwhelmingly favors protecting Unified’s highly
`
`confidential Information. The Information Unified seeks to protect has nothing to do
`
`with patentability, the scope of U.S. Patent No. 10,621,228 (the “’228 patent”), or
`
`any matter generally impacting the public interest in evaluating the ’228 patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`Rather, the limited material sought to be protected involve Unified’s status as the
`
`real party-in-interest. The material relates to certain business dealings between
`
`Unified and non-parties to this proceeding. That material is not known to the public.
`
`The public interest is well-served in keeping the Information included within
`
`the redacted portions of the Reply confidential. This Information was provided with
`
`the expectation that it would remain confidential. The Board should seal this
`
`Information so that information can be exchanged in trial proceedings without the
`
`fear of incidental public exposure of confidential business information.
`
`The redacted portions of the Reply relate to Unified’s core business and the
`
`business dealings between Unified and at least some of its members. The redacted
`
`portions of the Reply contain highly confidential and extremely sensitive
`
`commercial information related to Unified’s core business. Unified guards such
`
`information closely as core business and contractual information, to protect its
`
`members as well as its own business. Unified has not made, and does not intend to
`
`make, this information publicly available. Patent Owner has not contested the
`
`sensitivity of this information or the fact that it is core to Unified’s business.
`
`Unified’s business strategies and dealings with its members constitute highly
`
`confidential business information, as well as trade secrets. The redacted portions of
`
`the Reply contain information about how Unified runs its business and its contractual
`
`relationship with its members. Several potential harms would occur if this highly
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`confidential business information were to be disclosed. For example, disclosure of
`
`this information to the public would provide Unified’s competitors and would-be
`
`business rivals with a roadmap of how to replicate Unified’s unique, valuable
`
`business model. It would reveal contractual business information between two
`
`parties produced voluntarily under a joint protective order. Thus, the public interest
`
`will not be harmed by the sealing of the confidential business information.
`
`III. NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSIONS SUBMITTED
`
`As required by the TPG, the Default Protective Order, and the agreed-upon
`
`Protective Order, a non-confidential redacted version of the Reply has been filed as
`
`Paper 30. The redactions are minimal and limited in nature and scope to the
`
`confidential data.
`
`The undersigned counsel for Petitioner certifies the information sought to be
`
`sealed by this Motion to Seal has not been published or otherwise made public.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE BOARD
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion to Seal, the
`
`Parties hereby request a conference call with the Board to discuss any concerns prior
`
`to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board seal
`
`and protect Petitioner’s confidential information in the unredacted version of the
`
`Reply. Petitioner further requests that the Board seal and protect the confidential
`
`information in these documents until such time as it receives and rules on this
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Ellyar Y. Barazesh/
`Ellyar Y. Barazesh
`Reg. No. 74,096
`
`COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413, U.S. 10,621,228
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Fourth Motion to Seal
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`The undersigned hereby certifies that copies of the foregoing UNOPPOSED
`
`FOURTH MOTION TO SEAL were served on August 29, 2022, via electronic
`
`mail, as agreed to by counsel, upon the following counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`George Dandalides
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison, Suite 5200
`Chicago, IL 60602-4224
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`Matthew A. Werber
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison, Suite 5200
`Chicago, IL 60602-4224
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ashley Cheung/
`Ashley Cheung
`Paralegal
`Unified Patents, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2022
`
`
`
`