IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00222
`
`
`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
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-00222
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`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 57). Patent Owner submits this Motion to safeguard Unified
`
`Patents, LLC (“Unified”), Petitioner, and Patent Owner’s confidential information,
`
`pursuant to the Protective Order. See Paper 47. Patent Owner will provide a redacted
`
`version of the Reply once it has had the opportunity to consult with the Unified and
`
`Samsung to determine the extent of the redactions.
`
`As discussed in greater detail below, the forthcoming redacted version of the
`
`Reply will rely on and discuss the confidential information disclosed in exhibits
`
`previously filed under seal.
`
`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
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed an unopposed motion for entry of a Protective Order (Paper 47).
`
`All relevant parties have executed the Protective Order.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 contains non-public, highly confidential proprietary business
`
`information pertaining to Petitioner’s contractual relationship with Unified Patents
`
`LLC and confidential communications between MemoryWeb and Unified. This
`
`information includes confidential commercial information that Unified, Samsung
`
`and MemoryWeb have not made, and do not intend to make, publicly available. This
`
`information was produced pursuant to the Protective Order.
`
`Second, public disclosure of this information would expose Petitioner’s
`
`confidential business activities. The Reply contains information the parties maintain
`
`as confidential. Patent Owner believes that the public will not be harmed by sealing
`
`this confidential business information.
`
`Third, the Reply is directly relevant to whether Petitioner is a real party in
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 should be sealed. Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`Motion.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR SEALING THE REPLY
`Patent Owner’s Reply relies on and discusses the confidential aspects of
`
`exhibits previously filed under seal. A redacted version of the Reply is forthcoming.
`
`The balance favors protecting the relevant parties’ confidential information.
`
`The information cited in the Reply 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 portions of the Reply 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 information also relates to Unified’s confidential
`
`dealings with MemoryWeb.
`
`The relevant exhibits cited and discussed in the Reply were provided with the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`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 chance of incidental public exposure of confidential
`
`business information. The public interest is well-served in keeping this information
`
`confidential.
`
`III. NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION
`
`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
`
`Reply is forthcoming. Patent Owner will submit a redacted version 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.
`
`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 the unredacted
`
`version of the Reply.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`Patent No. 10,621,228
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 31, 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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00222
`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 31, 2023, upon the following
`
`parties via electronic service:
`
`IPR39843-0117IP1@fr.com
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`jjm@fr.com
`
`in@fr.com
`
`cgreen@fr.com
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
