`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC., ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL
`GROUP, INC., AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION,
`and ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01006 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`IPR2022-01045 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Revised Joint Motion for Protective Order
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 A copy of this Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this combined caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`
`With our authorization, the parties filed an identical Revised Joint
`Motion for Protective Order in each of IPR2022-01006, IPR2022-01045 and
`IPR2022-01089. See, Paper 21 (for IPR2022-01006); and Paper 19 (for each
`of IPR2022-01045; 01089) (“Revised Joint Motions”).
`The Revised Joint Motions include an agreed upon Stipulated
`Protective Order, attached as Appendix A. The Revised Joint Motions also
`include a red-lined mark-up showing the differences between the Stipulated
`Protective Order and the PTAB’s default protective order, attached as
`Appendix B.
`Our rules identify confidential information in a manner consistent
`with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for
`protective orders for trade secret or other confidential research,
`development, or commercial information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. A protective
`order must be proposed by one or more parties and must be approved and
`entered by the Board. Protective orders may be issued for good cause by the
`Board to protect a party from disclosing confidential information. Id.
`As stated in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide (November 2019) (“TPG”), the parties may propose
`modifications to the Default Protective Order. TPG 115. The Board will
`consider changes agreed to by the parties, and generally will accept such
`proposed changes if they are consistent with the integrity and efficient
`administration of the proceedings. Id. For example, the parties may agree to
`modify the Default Protective Order to provide additional tiers or categories
`of confidential information, such as a category of “Outside Attorneys’ Eyes
`Only” (id.), as proposed in the submitted Revised Joint Motions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`
`Based on the nature of the technology involved in this proceeding, and
`the competition among the parties, we determine good cause exists for entry
`of the Stipulated Protective Order. We also determine that the Stipulated
`Protective Order is consistent with the integrity and efficient administration
`of the proceedings.
`The terms of the entered Stipulated Protective Order govern the
`treatment of any confidential portions of documents, testimony, and other
`information designated as confidential, as well as the filing of confidential
`documents or discussion of confidential information in any papers filed with
`the Board. TPG, 107. In filing the Joint Motions, the parties acknowledge
`that the Board has the authority to enforce the terms of the Stipulated
`Protective Order, to provide remedies for its breach, and to impose sanctions
`on a party and a party’s representatives for any violations of its terms.
`Id. at 107–108.
`The Revised Joint Motions for entry of the Stipulated Protective Order
`are granted.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James Kritsas
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`james.kritsas@morganlewis.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Ryan
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`