IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GEOFFREY MILLER
`ERIC ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`_____________
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GEOFFREY MILLER
`ERIC ZHOU, Reg. No. 68,842
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`_____________
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXPUNGE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ......................................................... 1
`II.
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR EXPUNGING THE
`CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT ................................................................... 2
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, Paper 97 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015) ........................................... 2
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ..................................................................................................... 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.56 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 ............................................................. 2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,076,708
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,413,832
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365 to Yoshikawa
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,365
`
`Expert Declaration of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Ravin Balakrishnan
`
`Robert Corrina, “What is a Role Playing Game?,” Gamasutra,
`March 11, 2009
`
`“Secret of Monkey Island, The Download (Adventure Game),”
`old-games.com
`
`Gus Mustrapa, “Scarce Borderlands Weapons Scratch That Old
`Diablo Itch,” WIRED, October 20, 2009
`
`“Vending Machine”, Borderlands Wiki, 13:39, February 25, 2012
`Revision
`
`M.J. Stephey, “A Brief History of Scrabble,” TIME, Dec. 7, 2008
`
`Game Rules,” World English-Language Scrabble Players’
`Association (WESPA), Version 2.0, issued by the WESPA Rules
`Committee 17 November 2010
`
`Scrabble Dating, Donald Sauter
`
`Scrabble Complete PC Manual, Infogrames Interactive, Inc., 2002
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`Description
`
`Francis Chang et al., “Modeling Player Session Times of On-line
`Games,” NetGames '03: Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on
`Network and system support for games, May 2003
`
`John Carter, “The Original Magic Rulebook,” December 25, 2004
`
`“Rarity,” MTG Wiki, 29 Jan. 2010 Revision
`
`“Magic: The Gathering Online 3.0 and the Theory of Virtual
`Objects,” Gamespy, March 27, 2005
`
`“Now Everyone Can Play the Pokémon Trading Card Game
`Online,” Kotaku, August 25, 2011
`
`U.S. Patent 9,511,285 to Hawkins
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0051114 to Robbers et al.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,352,542 to Stroffolino
`
`“Scrabble/Rules,” Wikibooks
`
`Scrabble Complete (PC CD-ROM), Infogrames
`
`“Amazon.com: Scrabble Complete: Video Games,” Amazon.com
`
`“Hasbro Family Game Night: Scrabble Xbox Live Gameplay,”
`IGN, YouTube
`
`POPR, PGR2020-00053
`
`Scott McKeown, Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (June 30, 2020)
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After
`PTAB Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24, 2020)
`
`Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Relief re
`Governmental Restrictions re COVID-19 (19-00161), Dkt. 102
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`Fourth Amended Docket Control Order (19-00310), Dkt. 62
`
`Plaintiff Gree, Inc.’s Paragraph 1 and 3 Initial and Additional
`Disclosures, Feb. 18, 2020 (19-00310)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Notice of Deposition of Tomoki
`Yasuhara, Aug. 7, 2020 (19-00310)
`
`Defendant Supercell Oy’s Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of
`Plaintiff GREE, Inc.
`
`Amended Docket Control Order, entered October 7, 2020
`[Dkt. 81], Civil Case No. 19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas
`
`Sixth Amended Docket Control Order [Dkt 94], entered on
`October 23, 2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D. Texas)
`
`Order (Granting Continuance of In-Person Jury Trials) (Dkt. 261),
`entered on November 20, 2020, Infernal Technology, LLC, et al.
`v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case. No. 19-cv-00248
`(E.D. Texas)
`
`Texas COVID-19 Active Case Data By County, available at
`https://dshs.state.tx.us/coronavirus/TexasCOVID-
`19ActiveCaseDatabyCounty.xlsx (retrieved February 8, 2021)
`
`Texas Department of State Health Services Website, Texas
`COVID-19 Data, available at
`https://dshs.texas.gov/coronavirus/additionaldata.aspx (retrieved
`February 8, 2021)
`
`New coronavirus variant could take over by spring, experts day,
`The Dallas Morning News, Jan. 16, 2021, available at
`https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/01/16/new-coronavirus-
`variant-could-take-over-by-spring-experts-say/
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Katie Buehler, COVID-19 Outbreak Leads to Mistrial in EDTX,
`Law360 (Nov. 17, 2020),
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1329617/covid-19-outbreak-
`leads-to-mistrial-in-edtx
`Order entered on November 20, 2020, Solas OLED Ltd. v.
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd., [Dkt 302], Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-
`JRG
`Email from Michael Morlock to Fenwick & West, February 22,
`2021 regarding reduction to claims at issue, GREE, Inc. v.
`Supercell Oy, E.D. Texas Case Nos. 2:19-cv-00200, -00237, -
`00310, -00311
`
`Email from Adrienne Dellinger, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney
`Gilstrap, Feb. 25, 2021, regarding Order of Trials for March 2021
`(E.D. Texas)
`
`Email from Taylor Mauze, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney
`Gilstrap, March 2, 2021, regarding March 15, 2021 Jury Selection
`and Trial Procedures (E.D. Texas)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56, Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that certain confidential information in the record
`
`be expunged. This motion is authorized by the Board’s March 18, 2021 Decision
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, . . . Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper 13). For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner respectfully requests that
`
`certain papers and documents be expunged.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests that Exhibit 1034 (Plaintiff GREE, Inc.’s
`
`Paragraph 1 and 3 Initial and Additional Disclosures) for which a Motion to Seal
`
`was filed on August 28, 2020 as Paper 3, be expunged from the record, as this
`
`document contains Patent Owner’s highly confidential business information.1
`
`II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`37 CFR § 42.56 provides that following “denial of a petition to institute a trial
`
`or after final judgment in a trial, a party may file a motion to expunge confidential
`
`information from the record.” The Trial Practice Guide states that “[t]here is an
`
`expectation that information will be made public where the existence of the
`
`information is referred to in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute a review
`
`
`1 Petitioner is filing a parallel Motion to Expunge Confidential Document for this
`
`confidential exhibit in IPR2020-1619.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`or is identified in a final written decision following a trial.” Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,761. However, the Trial Practice Guide also states that a party
`
`“seeking to maintain the confidentiality of information . . . may file a motion to
`
`expunge the information from the record prior to the information becoming public.”
`
`A party seeking expungement from the record must show good cause by
`
`demonstrating “that any information sought to be expunged constitutes confidential
`
`information, and that Petitioner’s interest in expunging it outweighs the public’s
`
`interest in maintaining a complete and understandable history of this inter partes
`
`review.” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453,
`
`Paper 97 at 2 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015).
`
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR EXPUNGING THE CONFIDENTIAL
`DOCUMENT
`In this proceeding, the Board entered its Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`
`Partes Review, . . . Dismissing Petitioner’s Motion to Seal, authorizing Petitioner to
`
`file a motion to expunge Exhibit 1034 “within 90 days after the date of entry of [the
`
`Board’s] Decision or, if a request for rehearing is filed, within 90 days after the date
`
`of entry of a decision on the request.” (Paper 13) On April 19, 2021, Petitioner filed
`
`a Request for Rehearing (Paper 16). On August 18, 2021, Petitioner filed an
`
`Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Request for Rehearing (Paper 22), and on August
`
`19, 2021, the Board granted Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion (Paper 23).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`As set forth in the Motion to Seal (Paper 3), the document contains Patent
`
`Owner’s confidential and highly sensitive business confidential information,
`
`disclosure of which would adversely harm Patent Owner, while expungement of
`
`which would not significantly impact the public’s interest in maintaining a complete
`
`and understandable file history. Expunging Exhibit 1034 also protects a sensitive
`
`District Court Litigation document served by GREE, Inc.
`
`To the best of Petitioner’s knowledge, Exhibit 1034 has never been published
`
`or otherwise made public. Patent Owner and Petitioner made efforts to maintain the
`
`confidentiality of this information in the Civil Action. In the Civil Action, Exhibit
`
`1034 was produced pursuant to a Protective Order agreed upon by the Parties, and
`
`was designated “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” pursuant to that
`
`Protective Order.
`
`Additionally, the Board did not rely on Exhibit 1034 in its denial of institution
`
`in this proceeding. See Paper 15 (discretional denial under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a)).
`
`Thus, there is no public interest in now making Patent Owner’s confidential
`
`information publicly available.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to expunge the confidential document.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board protect
`
`Petitioner’s highly confidential business information and expunge the confidential
`
`document pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.56.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R, Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Petitioner’s Motion to Expunge Confidential Document
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion to
`
`Expunge Confidential Document was served on Patent Owner’s lead and back-up
`
`counsel in its entirety by electronic service at the email addresses provided below:
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
`LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2006
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`Joshua H. Lee
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-6582
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`
`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
