`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 84
`Entered: November 20, 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 Patent Owner’s
`Unopposed Motions to Seal
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, MemoryWeb, LLC, filed two Unopposed Motions to
`Seal. Papers 77, 81. In its motions, Patent Owner requests that we seal its
`Updated Exhibit Lists, Papers 78 and 821, respectively. Paper 77, 1; Paper
`81, 1. Patent Owner indicates that it submits the motions “to safeguard . . .
`confidential information, pursuant to the Protective Order.” Id. Patent
`Owner also “certifies that it has conferred with Petitioner through counsel,
`and Petitioner does not oppose th[e] Motion[s] to seal.” 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.
`§ 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 Paper 81 appears to erroneously reference Patent Owner’s Updated Exhibit
`List as “Paper 81” instead of Paper 82. See Paper 81, 1.
`
`
`
`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, Patent Owner submits that the relevant documents “contain non-
`public, confidential proprietary business information,” and that public
`disclosure of this information would expose “confidential business
`activities.” Paper 77, 1–2; Paper 81, 2. Patent Owner also submits that it
`must rely on the 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 open record. Paper 77, 3; Paper
`81, 2–3.
`
`Upon considering Patent Owner’s representations and arguments, and
`the contents of the documents sought to be sealed, we conclude that Patent
`Owner has established good cause for sealing the requested documents.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions to Seal (Papers
`77 and 81) are granted, and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests to seal its
`Updated Exhibit Lists (Papers 78 and 82) are 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
`
`
`
`
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
