`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 95
`Filed: March 12, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`POLYGROUP LIMITED (MCO),
`Petitioner,
`v.
`WILLIS ELECTRIC CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B11
`_______________
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motions to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed in
`the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in all of the cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Polygroup Limited (MCO) (“Petitioner”) requested an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6, 8, 10–17, 28, 29, and 32 (“challenged claims”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,936,379 B1 (see, e.g., IPR2016-01615, Ex. 1001, “the ’379
`patent”)2 in a series of three Petitions. IPR2016-01615, Paper 2; IPR2016-
`01616, Paper 2; IPR2016-01617, Paper 2. Willis Electric Company, Limited
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response in each of the instant
`proceedings. IPR2016-01615, Paper 32; IPR2016-01616, Paper 31;
`IPR2016-01617, Paper 33. Petitioner filed a Reply in each of the instant
`proceedings. IPR2016-01615, Paper 47; IPR2016-01616, Paper 47;
`IPR2016-01617, Paper 50.
`With each of its Replies, Petitioner submitted supporting evidence,
`including deposition transcripts and a declaration designated as confidential.
`Id. 3 Petitioner also filed Motions to Seal the evidence designated as
`confidential. See, e.g., IPR2016-01615, Paper 46 (“Mot.”).4
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`Petitioner asserts that it “moves to seal Exhibits 1104, 1105, 1106,
`1119, and 1120 . . . because these documents refer to and discuss documents
`
`
`2 The ’379 Patent also was filed as Exhibit 1001 in IPR2016-01616 and
`IPR2016-01617 and will be referred to as “Exhibit 1001” or “Ex. 1001”
`throughout.
`3 The exhibit numbers of the transcripts and declaration designated as
`confidential are in the Appendix.
`4 Further citations will be to IPR2016-01615, unless otherwise noted.
`Petitioner’s Motions to Seal also are listed in the Appendix.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B1
`
`produced and/or designated by Patent Owner as confidential under the
`Protective Order.” Mot. 1. Petitioner, additionally, asserts it “understands”
`that “Patent Owner contends disclosure” of Exhibits 1104, 1105, 1106,
`1119, and 1120 “would harm Patent Owner” and “Petitioner has not reason
`to doubt” that good cause exists to seal these exhibits. Id. Petitioner also
`asserts that it “understands” that Exhibits 1104, 1105, 1106, 1119, and 1120
`“contain only confidential information.” Id.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), the default rule is that all papers filed in
`an inter partes review are open and available for access by the public. The
`standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54. A
`moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief requested should be
`granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`As an initial matter, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, at least Exhibits
`1104, 1105, and 1106 contain publicly available information. Indeed, Mr.
`Wood’s Reply Declaration is not designated as confidential and discusses
`excerpts of these materials. Ex. 1100 ¶¶ 5, 21, 60, 66, 72. Also, Petitioner’s
`Reply is not designated as confidential and discuses excerpts Exhibit 1104.
`See, e.g., 1615 Pet. Reply 8, 11, 13, 15–17, 19, 25. Additionally, neither
`party has explained why designation of materials in another proceeding
`pending in District Court is itself enough to demonstrate that good cause
`exists to seal Exhibits 1104, 1105, 1106, 1119, and 1120 in the instant
`proceedings.
`We recognize that a denial of the motion to seal would permit
`unsealing the material that Patent Owner desires to remain confidential and
`the effect would be irreversible. Therefore, we will provide the parties with
`one week to submit non-confidential, redacted versions of Exhibits 1104,
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B1
`
`1105, 1106, 1119, and 1120 and file a Joint Supplemental Motion to Seal
`setting forth the reasons, with particularity, why the information redacted is
`confidential. We will maintain Exhibits 1104, 1105, 1106, 1119, and 1120
`provisionally under seal until we have ruled on any such motion or the time
`for filing such motion has expired.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In view of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions to Seal (IPR2016-01615, Paper
`46; IPR2016-01616, Paper 46; IPR2016-01617, Paper 51) are denied
`without prejudice to submitting public versions of Exhibits designated as
`confidential listed in the Appendix for each of the proceedings and re-filing
`in each of the instant proceedings a Joint Motion to Seal to address the
`deficiencies set forth herein by March 20, 2018.
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B1
`
`
`APPENDIX
`
`
`IPR2016-01615
`
`IPR2016-01616
`
`IPR2016-01617
`
`Paper 46
`Ex. 1104
`
`Paper 46
`Ex. 1104
`
`Paper 51
`Ex. 1104
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`Not Applicable
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Ex. 1119
`
`Ex. 1120
`
`Ex. 1120
`
`Ex. 1120
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Title of Paper
`or Confidential
`Exhibit
`Motion to Seal
`Stuart Brown
`Deposition
`Transcript
`Johnny Chen
`Deposition
`Transcript
`Mike Sugar
`Deposition
`Transcript
`Winston Tan
`Deposition
`Transcript
`Johnny Chen
`Declaration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617
`Patent 8,936,379 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Christopher Forstner
`Paul McGowan
`Alexis N. Simpson
`Ryan Schneider
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`chris.forstner@troutmansanders.com
`paul.mcgowan@troutmansanders.com
`alexis.simpson@troutmansanders.com
`ryan.schneider@troutmansanders.com
`
`Jason Eisenberg
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`jasone-ptab@skgf.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Larina Alton
`Douglas Christensen
`CHRISTENSEN FONDER P.A
`alton@cfpatlaw.com
`christensen@cfpatlaw.com
`
`Luke D. Toft
`Archana Nath
`Jeff Schwartz
`Ryan Miller
`FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
`ltoft@foxrothschild.com
`anath@foxrothschild.com
`jeschwartz@foxrothschild.com
`rmiller@foxrothschild.com
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`