IPR2022-00031
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Updated Exhibit List (Paper 81). Patent Owner
`
`submits this Motion to safeguard Petitioner’s and Unified Patents, LLC’s
`
`(“Unified”) confidential information, pursuant to the Protective Order. See Paper 52.
`
`Patent Owner provides redacted versions of its Updated Exhibit List concurrently
`
`with this Motion.
`
`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
`
`protective order as to the confidential information.”1 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
`
`1 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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 Updated Exhibit List contains non-public, confidential proprietary
`
`business information pertaining to Unified. Patent Owner understands that this
`
`information includes confidential commercial information that Unified 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.
`
`Second, Patent Owner understands from Unified that public disclosure of this
`
`information would expose Unified’s confidential business activities. Patent Owner
`
`understands the Updated Exhibit List contains information Petitioner and/or Unified
`
`maintains as confidential. Patent Owner believes that the public will not be harmed
`
`by sealing Unified’s confidential business information.
`
`Third, the information in the Updated Exhibit List concerns exhibits that 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 Unified’s confidential information to prove that Petitioner is an RPI to
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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
`
`Updated Exhibit List 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
`
`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).
`
`The Updated Exhibit List discloses the exhibits Patent Owner relied on in
`
`support of its Motion to Terminate and its Reply in Support of the Motion to
`
`Terminate. The exhibits disclosed in the Updated Exhibit List were produced
`
`pursuant to the Protective Order in this case. Thus, the Updated Exhibit List contains
`
`sensitive business information that Petitioner and Unified assert has not been
`
`published or otherwise made publicly available.
`
`The balance favors protecting Petitioner’s and Unified’s confidential
`
`information. The information in the Updated Exhibit List is not related to
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 Board should seal this information to prevent the 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, a non-confidential redacted version of the
`
`Updated Exhibit List is being filed concurrently with this Motion. The redactions
`
`are minimal and limited in nature and scope to the confidential information.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`seal and protect Petitioner’s and Unified’s confidential information in unredacted
`
`
`
`
`
`versions of the Updated Exhibit List.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: November 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jennifer Hayes/
`By:
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 November 17, 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
`
`
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
