Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: August 9, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ROKU, INC. and VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`___________________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and RYAN H. FLAX,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5 and 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: August 9, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`ROKU, INC. and VIZIO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`___________________
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN W. CHERRY, and RYAN H. FLAX,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5 and 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On February 22, 2022, we instituted trial in the instant IPR
`proceeding. Paper 10. On May 3, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Response to
`Petition. Papers 21 (“sealed”), 22 (“redacted”). On July 22, 2022, Petitioner
`filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (“Pet. Reply,” Papers 32
`(“redacted”), 33 (“sealed”)), along with Exhibits 1029–1054.
`Also, on July 22, 2022, Petitioner filed the Motion to Seal (Paper 34
`(“Motion to Seal” or “Motion”). Petitioner requests to seal Exhibits 1034,
`1050–1054 and Petitioner’s Reply, and contends that “Patent Owner does
`not oppose this [M]otion.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner did not file an opposition
`to the Motion. For the reasons below, we grant Petitioner’s Motion to Seal,
`thereby sealing Exhibits 1034, 1050–1054 (collectively, “the Confidential
`Exhibits”) and Petitioner’s Reply.
`II. DISCUSSION
`In an inter partes review, the moving party bears the burden of
`showing that the relief requested should be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A
`party moving to seal must show “good cause” for the relief requested.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The “good cause” standard for granting a motion to
`seal reflects the strong public policy for making all information in an inter
`partes review open to the public. See Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon
`Research, Ltd., IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018)
`(informative). When assessing whether the good cause standard has been
`met, we may consider whether (1) the information at issue is confidential,
`(2) 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) the
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`interest in maintaining confidentiality as to the information outweighs the
`strong public interest in an open record. Id. at 4.
`Petitioner contends that the Confidential Exhibits at issue “comprise
`certain patent license agreements” that Patent Owner produced “in view of
`Petitioner’s granted Motion for Additional Discovery (Paper 25), as well as
`deposition testimony discussing those license agreements (EX1034).”
`Mot. 2. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner has represented that “the
`agreements are confidential and thus have not been published or otherwise
`made public.” Id. In particular, Petitioner contends that, pursuant to the
`Board’s June 17, 2022 Order (Paper 29), Patent Owner designated the
`agreements as “THIRD-PARTY CONFIDENTIAL—PARTY ACCESS
`LIMITED” under the Protective Order in this proceeding (Ex. 2038),
`wherein, under the terms of the Protective Order, documents so designated
`must be filed under seal. Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 2038 ¶ 4(A)(i)).
`According to Petitioner, the confidential information also includes
`“portions of Petitioners’ Reply, which quotes and characterizes those
`Confidential Exhibits.” Mot. 2. Petitioner contends that, to the best of its
`ability, it has limited material in the Reply to non-confidential information
`and has redacted confidential information citing, quoting or characterizing
`the Confidential Exhibits. Id. at 3.
`Petitioner then contends that, by designating the Confidential
`Exhibits as confidential under the Protective Order, Patent Owner has
`represented that public disclosure of the agreements and information
`contained therein would significantly harm Patent Owner and potentially
`violate confidentiality provisions associated with those Confidential
`Exhibits. Mot. 4. According to Petitioner, “[t]he public interest will not be
`harmed by granting this Motion to Seal the documents as ‘PROTECTIVE
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`ORDER MATERIAL,’” but rather, “would achieve ‘a balance between the
`public’s interest in maintaining a complete and understandable file history
`and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive information.’” Id.
`(citing 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760).
`
`After reviewing the record before us, we determine that the
`Confidential Exhibits and the redacted information in the Reply (compare
`Papers 32 and 33) are truly confidential and thus properly sealed. We also
`determine that Petitioner has adequately shown that Patent Owner would be
`harmed by not sealing the information, that the parties have a need to rely on
`this information at trial, and that the interest in maintaining the information
`as confidential outweighs the public interest in having the information
`unsealed. Accordingly, we conclude that good cause exists to seal the
`Confidential Exhibits and the redacted information in Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motion to Seal (Paper 34) is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response (Paper 32) and the Confidential Exhibits (Exs. 1034, 1050–1054)
`will continue to be maintained under seal.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01406
`Patent 6,411,941 B1
`PETITIONER:
`Jon Wright
`Lestin Kenton
`Dohm Chankong
`Richard Crudo
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jwright-ptab@sternekessler.com
`lkenton-ptab@sternekessler.com
`dchankong-ptab@sternekessler.com
`rcrudo-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David Gosse
`Nicholas Peters
`Karen Wang
`FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`dgosse@fitcheven.com
`ntpete@fitcheven.com
`kwang@fitcheven.com
`
`4
`
`
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
