`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-00222
`Patent 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00222
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0117IP1
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.54, Petitioner Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.
`
`respectfully moves to seal Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Terminate.
`
`II. Applicable Legal Principles for Sealing Confidential Information
`A party seeking to protect confidential information may seek entry of a
`
`protective order in a proceeding before the Board. See, e.g., Garmin Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013).
`
`Upon a showing of good cause, the Board may enter a Protective Order to protect
`
`from public disclosure such confidential information as disclosed by a party during
`
`the course of a proceeding before the Board. See 37 CFR § 42.54. Petitioner
`
`submits this Motion to safeguard the confidential information of the relevant
`
`parties to this proceeding, pursuant to the Protective Order.1 See Paper 47.
`
`
`
`
`
` The relevant parties with respect to this Motion are Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`Ltd. (“Samsung” or “Petitioner”) and Unified Patents, LLC (“Unified”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00222
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0117IP1
`III. Good Cause Exists for Sealing the Unredacted Version of
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate includes
`
`confidential information designated as Protective Order Material pursuant to the
`
`Protective Order. Good cause exists for sealing the confidential version of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate because it contains
`
`confidential business information that is unknown to the public. Indeed, the Board
`
`has already authorized filing of associated confidential evidence as “Parties and
`
`Board.” In this regard, failing to seal the confidential version of the Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate would frustrate the purpose of
`
`sealing the confidential evidence. Indeed, the sealing of confidential information
`
`in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate would ensure that
`
`information designated throughout the proceedings as confidential remains
`
`protected.
`
`When the record of this proceeding is considered as a whole, the public
`
`would still have full access to the nature of the information and the conclusions
`
`reached using the publicly available information. Such access should adequately
`
`fulfill the needs of the public to maintain a complete and understandable file
`
`history, while still protecting confidential and proprietary information. For these
`
`reasons, good cause exists for the Board to seal and protect Petitioner’s Reply to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00222
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0117IP1
`
`IV. Non-Confidential Version
`As required by the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, a non-confidential redacted
`
`version of the Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate is
`
`forthcoming. Petitioner will submit a redacted version of this Reply after the
`
`relevant parties have had the opportunity to review following submission of the
`
`Reply. The redactions will be limited in nature to the scope of the confidential
`
`information.
`
`V. Certification of Non-Publication
`On Petitioner’s behalf, the undersigned counsel certifies that, to the best of
`
`its knowledge, the confidential information in the Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Terminate has not been published or otherwise made public.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00222
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0117IP1
`
`VI. Conclusion
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that Petitioner’s
`
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Motion to Terminate be treated as confidential
`
`information, be placed under seal, and be maintained under the entered Protective
`
`Order as “Protective Order Material.”
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/Hyun Jin In/
`
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Hyun Jin In, Reg. No. 70,014
`Christopher O. Green, Reg. No. 52,964
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5070
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No. IPR2022-00222
`Attorney Docket No: 39843-0117IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(1) and 42.6(e)(4)(iii), the undersigned
`
`certifies that on October 13, 2023, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s
`
`Motion to Seal was provided by email to the Patent Owner by serving the email
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`Matthew A. Werber
`Angelo Christopher
`Daniel Schwartz
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
`
`Email: jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`achristopher@nixonpeabody.com
`djschwartz@nixonpeabody.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`pacheco@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
