`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 26
`Entered: July 18, 2022
`
`
`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
`Entering Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14, 42.54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2047
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`On December 30, 2021, Unified Patents, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a
`
`first Motion to Seal. Paper 10 (“First Motion”). In the First Motion,
`
`Petitioner moved to seal Exhibits 1023–1025, and 1029. Id. at 1. Petitioner
`
`also moved to enter a proposed Protective Order accompanying the First
`
`Motion. See id., Appendix. Petitioner indicated that MemoryWeb, LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) does not oppose the First Motion or entry of the Protective
`
`Order. Id.
`
`On June 14, 2022, Petitioner field a second Motion to Seal. Paper 24
`
`(“Second Motion”). In the Second Motion, Petitioner moved to seal portions
`
`of Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) and Exhibit 2036, and the entirety of
`
`Exhibits 2028, 2030, 2032, 2033, and 2034. Id. at 1. Petitioner indicated
`
`that Patent Owner does not oppose the Second Motion. Id.
`
`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
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2047
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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).
`
`First, Petitioner asserts that the redacted portions of the POR and
`
`Exhibit 2036, and the entirety of Exhibits 1023–1025, 1029, 2028, 2030,
`
`2032, 2033, and 2034, contain confidential member agreements and
`
`information regarding business operations that Petitioner maintains as
`
`confidential trade secrets. Paper 10, 2; Paper 24, 2–3. Second, Petitioner
`
`asserts that several potential harms would result upon public disclosure,
`
`including exposing Petitioner’s business model and confidential business
`
`activities. Paper 10, 2–3; Paper 24, 3. Petitioner also asserts that it has a
`
`contractual obligation to maintain confidentiality of the information, and
`
`disclosure of the information would harm third parties not involved in the
`
`proceeding. Paper 10, 3; Paper 24, 3. Third, Petitioner asserts that there
`
`exists a genuine need in the trial to rely on the specific information to
`
`dispute Patent Owner’s assertions as to real parties-in-interest. Paper 10, 3;
`
`Paper 24, 4. Finally, Petitioner asserts that an interest in maintaining
`
`confidentiality of these documents outweighs the public interest “in having
`
`an entirely open record.” Paper 10, 3; Paper 24, 4.
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2047
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01413
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`With the motions to seal, Petitioner submits a proposed Protective
`
`Order that differs from the Board’s Default Protective Order. Paper 10, 6.
`
`Petitioner’s submitted Protective Order includes a “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” designation. Id. at 6,
`
`Appendix 1. Petitioner asserts that the Protective Order further limits access
`
`among the parties’ representatives and addresses the treatment of
`
`confidential material by the parties. See id. at 6–7, Appendix 4–6.
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`Upon considering the Petitioner’s representations and arguments, the
`
`contents of the exhibits sought to be sealed in their entirety, the contents of
`
`the information sought to be redacted, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`established good cause for sealing the requested documents.
`
`
`
`Upon reviewing the proposed Protective Order (Paper 10, Appendix),
`
`we conclude that the differences from the Board’s Default Protective Order
`
`address the parties’ obligations and do not limit the Board’s authority in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to enter the proposed Protective
`
`order (Paper 10, Appendix) is granted, and the Protective Order is entered;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s requests to seal Exhibits
`
`1023–1025, 1029, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2033, and 2034 are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s requests to seal redacted
`
`portions of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response and Exhibit 2036 are
`
`granted.
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2047
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`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
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2047
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`