`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 73
`Entered: October 11, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`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 Motion to Seal
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`On September 29, 2023, Petitioner, Apple Inc., filed an Unopposed
`Motion to Seal. Paper 65 (“Motion”). In its Motion, Petitioner requests that
`we seal certain portions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
`to Terminate (Paper 64) and Exhibits 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100,
`1117, and 1118. Motion 1. Petitioner indicates that it submits this Motion
`“to safeguard the confidential information of the relevant parties to this
`proceeding, pursuant to the Protective Order.”1 Id. Petitioner also “certifies
`that i[t] has conferred with Patent Owner who does not oppose this Motion
`to seal.” Id. at 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.
`§ 316(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 party bears the burden of showing the requested relief should be
`granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed an Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order
`(Paper 52), which the Board granted (Paper 55).
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`To establish “good cause” for the requested relief, the moving party
`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. 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).
`Here, Petitioner submits that the relevant documents “contain non-
`public, highly confidential proprietary business information,” that public
`disclosure of this information would cause a concrete harm by exposing a
`“business model to copying by other businesses,” and that certain of the
`parties have “contractual obligations to maintain the confidential
`information” contained within the relevant documents. Motion 3–4.
`Petitioner also submits that it is “genuinely necessary” to rely on this
`confidential information in order to establish important contentions in this
`case and that “the interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the
`public interest in having an entirely open record.” Id. at 5. Petitioner
`explains that in order to establish the contentions in its Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Terminate (Paper 64), Petitioner “must include . . .
`confidential information that has not been published or otherwise made
`publicly available.” Motion 5.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`Upon considering Petitioner’s representations and arguments, and the
`
`contents of the documents sought to be sealed and redacted, we conclude
`that Petitioner has established good cause for sealing and redacting the
`requested documents.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion to Seal is granted,
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to seal Exhibits 1095,
`1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1117, and 1118 is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to seal redacted
`portions of Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate
`(Paper 64) is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`Angelo Christopher
`Matthew Werber
`Daniel Schwartz
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`achristopher@nixonpeabody.com
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`djschwartz@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`