Takeaway: Motions to seal must be filed by the party whose confidential information is being sought to be protected, regardless of which party produced or filed the particular paper to be sealed.
In its Decision, the Board decided a number of motions by Petitioner and Patent Owner. In particular, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal and granted Petitioner’s Motions to Seal and Expunge.
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal its Response to Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review because it discusses confidential documents produced by Petitioner. Because the document to be sealed includes allegedly confidential information of Petitioner, rather than Patent Owner, it is Petitioner’s burden to show good cause to seal. Thus, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Motion, but authorized Petitioner to file a motion to seal, along with a proposed redacted version.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery, to enter a replacement, redacted version, and to expunge the original version. The Motion was filed in response to the Board’s decision to deny Patent Owner’s similar motion, because the alleged confidential information was Petitioner’s information. Petitioner represented that the redactions contain highly sensitive commercial information from agreements that were designated confidential during litigation between the parties, produced pursuant to a protective order in place in that litigation, and previously sealed in this proceeding.
Patent Owner filed a Motion to Seal its Motion to Compel Production of Unredacted Documents, but failed to file a redacted version. Again the Board denied the Motion because the alleged confidential information was Petitioner’s information, and authorized Petitioner to file a motion to seal with a redacted version.
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453
Paper 52: Decision on Motions to Seal
Dated: May 20, 2014
Before: Jennifer S. Bisk, James B. Arpin, and Patrick M. Boucher
Written by: Boucher