Takeaway: If parties intend to redact the entirety of an exhibit, the Board expects a specific discussion of each subpart within the exhibit. A general discussion of the exhibit as a whole is insufficient to establish that the entirety of the exhibit contains confidential information that should be sealed.
In its Order, the Board denied the joint Motion to Seal Exhibits 2007-2011 and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. The Board granted Entry of the Protective Order.
The Parties filed a “Joint Motion to Seal and Joint Protective Order” which sought to seal Exhibits 2007-2011 and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. The Motion states Patent Owner will file redacted versions of the exhibits and its Preliminary Response within a reasonable time after their submission. The Board noted that the Motion fails to identify specifically what in the items sought to be sealed are purported to be confidential information and why. The Motion does not identify or discuss any redacted information, and the subsequent filing of redacted versions of the Preliminary Response and the Exhibits does not cure the deficiency of the Motion in failing to discuss and identify the redacted materials specifically. The Board noted that the redacted Exhibits 2007-2011 contained no content other than a coversheet identifying the exhibit number and the statement “Redacted in its Entirety.” The Board stated that this was insufficient to establish that the entirety of the exhibit contains confidential information that should be sealed.
UNIFIED PATENTS INC. v. BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC, IPR2015-00118
Paper 13: Order Denying Motion to Seal/Granting Entry of Protective Order
Dated: February 29, 2016
Before: Jameson Lee, Thomas L. Giannetti, and Hung H. Bui
Written by: Lee