Takeaway: Even though parties may agree to proposed modifications to the Board’s default protective order, if sufficient justification for those modifications is not provided, the Board may not accept them.
In its Decision, the Board granted Patent Owner’s unopposed Motion to Seal portions of certain documents and accepted a revised version of the parties’ proposed protective order.
With respect to the Motion to Seal, the Board was persuaded that Patent Owner established good cause for sealing information related to Petitioner’s highly confidential and proprietary technical information that was produced by Petitioner in the related ITC proceeding.
Along with the Motion to Seal, Patent Owner filed an agreed upon protective order, a redline version showing changes from the Board’s default protective order, and an alternative proposed protective order. The Board addressed each proposed change relative to the Board’s default protective order in turn. For some of the proposed changes, the Board found persuasive Patent Owner’s reasoning in the Motion to Seal for such changes. However, in other instances, the Board indicated that either no justification or insufficient justification was provided in the Motion to Seal for the proposed modifications to the default protective order. Therefore, the Board accepted only some of the proposed changes, and ordered the parties to submit a signed Protective Order in accordance with the order.
Macronix International Co., Ltd., Macronix Asia Limited, Macronix (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd., and Macronix America, Inc. v. Spansion LLC, IPR2014-00105
Paper 29: Decision on Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal
Dated: September 3, 2014
Patent: 6,731,536 B1
Before: Debra K. Stephens, Justin T. Arbes, and Richard E. Rice
Written by: Stephens
Related Proceeding: In re Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-893