`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00031
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`Patent Owner MemoryWeb, LLC (“MemoryWeb”) submits this Motion to
`
`
`
`
`
`Seal (“Motion”) Patent Owner’s Reply In Support of its Motion to Terminate
`
`(“Reply”) (Paper 71) and Exhibits 2114, 2115, 2116 and 2117. Patent Owner
`
`submits this Motion to safeguard Petitioner’s confidential information, pursuant to
`
`the Protective Order.1 See Paper 52. Patent Owner will provide redacted versions of
`
`the Reply and Exhibit 2117 once it has had the opportunity to consult with the
`
`relevant parties to determine the extent of the redactions.
`
`
`
`As discussed in greater detail below, each of the aforementioned exhibits
`
`comprises confidential information, and the forthcoming redacted version of the
`
`Reply will rely on and discuss the confidential information disclosed in such
`
`exhibits.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner certifies that it has conferred with Petitioner through counsel,
`
`and Petitioner does not oppose this Motion to seal.
`
`I. MOTION TO SEAL
`
`In an inter parties review, it is the default rule that all filings are publicly
`
`available. 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14. Where an exhibit contains
`
`confidential information, a party may file “a motion to seal with a proposed
`
`
`1 The relevant parties with respect to this Motion are Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Petitioner”) and Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`protective order as to the confidential information.”2 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.55; see also
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1). A motion to seal will only be granted if the movant
`
`demonstrates “good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). Good cause exists if the movant
`
`“demonstrate[s] 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 the 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) (citing 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.54(a)). All four prongs are satisfied here.
`
`First, the Reply, and Exhibits 2114-2117 contain non-public, highly
`
`confidential proprietary business information pertaining to Petitioner’s contractual
`
`relationship with Unified Patents LLC. Patent Owner understands that this
`
`information includes confidential commercial information that Petitioner has not
`
`made, and does not intend to make, publicly available. Patent Owner also
`
`understands that this information was produced pursuant to the Protective Order.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner filed an unopposed motion for entry of a Protective Order (Paper 52)
`
`and the Board granted Patent Owner’s motion (Paper 55). All relevant parties have
`
`executed the Protective Order.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`Due to the nature of Exhibits 2114, 2115, and 2116, Patent Owner and Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`cannot meaningfully provide redacted versions of these documents, and Patent
`
`Owner requests that they remain under seal in their entirety.
`
`Second, public disclosure of this information would expose Petitioner’s
`
`confidential business activities. Patent Owner understands the Reply and Exhibits
`
`2114-2117 contain information Petitioner maintains as confidential. Patent Owner
`
`believes that the public will not be harmed by sealing its confidential business
`
`information.
`
`Third, the exhibits at issue are directly relevant to whether Petitioner is a real
`
`party in interest (“RPI”) to Unified’s IPR. See Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb,
`
`LLC, IPR2021-01413. Patent Owner must rely on confidential information to prove
`
`that Petitioner is an RPI to Unified’s IPR.
`
`Fourth, on balance, the interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the
`
`public interest in having an open record. Accordingly, the redacted portions of the
`
`Reply and Exhibit 2117 (redactions forthcoming) and the entirety of Exhibits 2114,
`
`2115, and 2116 should be sealed. Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant this Motion.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING THE MOTION TO
`TERMINATE AND THE RELEVANT EXHIBITS
`In deciding whether to seal exhibits, the Board must find “good cause” and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper 36 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 5, 2013).
`
`Exhibit 2114 is an exhibit to an agreement between Apple and Unified that
`
`has been marked “Confidential” under the Protective Order in this case. This
`
`document contains sensitive business information that Petitioner asserts has not been
`
`published or otherwise made publicly available. Due to the nature of Exhibit 2114,
`
`Patent Owner and Petitioner cannot meaningfully provide redacted versions of this
`
`document, and request that it remain sealed in its entirety.
`
`Exhibit 2115 is an email communication that has been marked “Confidential”
`
`under the Protective Order in this case. This document contains sensitive business
`
`information that Petitioner asserts has not been published or otherwise made publicly
`
`available. Due to the nature of Exhibit 2115, Patent Owner and Petitioner cannot
`
`meaningfully provide redacted versions of this document, and request that it remain
`
`sealed in its entirety.
`
`Exhibit 2116 is an email communication that has been marked “Confidential”
`
`under the Protective Order in this case. This document contains sensitive business
`
`information that Petitioner asserts has not been published or otherwise made publicly
`
`available. Due to the nature of Exhibit 2116, Patent Owner and Petitioner cannot
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`meaningfully provide redacted versions of this document, and request that it remain
`
`
`
`
`
`sealed in its entirety.
`
`Exhibit 2117 is a deposition transcript of an Apple witness marked “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by Petitioner. Petitioner has
`
`asserted this document contains sensitive business information that has not been
`
`published or otherwise made publicly available. A public version of Exhibit 2117,
`
`from which the confidential information has been redacted, is forthcoming. Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply relies on and discusses the confidential aspects of exhibits being filed
`
`under seal pursuant to this motion. A redacted version of the Reply is forthcoming.
`
`The balance favors protecting Petitioner’s confidential information. The
`
`information in the aforementioned exhibits is not related to patentability, the scope
`
`of the ʾ228 patent, or any matter generally impacting the public interest in evaluating
`
`the ʾ228 patent. Rather, the information sought to be sealed relates to Petitioner’s
`
`status as an RPI to the Unified IPR. The information relates to business dealings
`
`between Unified and its members, including Petitioner. Unified has represented this
`
`information is not known to the public. See e.g., Unified Patents, IPR2021-01413,
`
`Paper 24 at 7.
`
`The relevant exhibits were provided with the expectation that they would
`
`remain confidential, pursuant to the Protective Order. The Board should seal this
`
`information so that Patent Owner can rely on these exhibits in its Reply without the
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`chance of incidental public exposure of confidential business information. The
`
`
`
`
`
`public interest is well-served in keeping this information confidential.
`
`III. NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSIONS
`
`As required by the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, the Default Protective Order,
`
`and the agreed-upon Protective Order, non-confidential redacted versions of Exhibit
`
`2117 and the Reply are forthcoming. Patent Owner will submit redacted versions
`
`after the relevant parties have had the opportunity to review following submission
`
`of the Motion. The redactions are minimal and limited in nature and scope to the
`
`confidential information.
`
`Patent Owner submits that the remaining exhibits are highly confidential in
`
`their entireties. Patent Owner certifies that, to the best of its knowledge and
`
`understanding, the information sought to be sealed by this Motion has not been
`
`published or otherwise made publicly available.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE BOARD
`
`Should the Board not be inclined to grant the present Motion, the Patent
`
`Owner and the relevant parties hereby request a conference call with the Board to
`
`discuss any concerns prior to the Board issuing a decision on the Motion.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`seal and protect the relevant parties’ confidential information in unredacted versions
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`of the Reply and Exhibit 2117, and Exhibits 2114, 2115, and 2116.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 10, 2023
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/Jennifer Hayes/
`Jennifer Hayes
`Reg. No. 50,845
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue,
`Suite 4100,
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`Tel. 213-629-6179
`Fax 866-781-9391
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Unopposed Motion to Seal was served on October 10, 2023, upon the following
`
`parties via electronic service:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Thomas A. Broughan, III
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`jkushan@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`SidleyAppleMemoryWebIPRs@sidley.com
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
`801 17th Street, NW, Suite 1050
`Washington, DC 20006
`Steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer Hayes
`By:
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`