July 19, 2013
Authored and Edited by Jeffrey C. Totten; Anthony A. Hartmann
Taking a hard line on protective-order issues, the PTAB recently dismissed Petitioner CRS’s motion to file information regarding Frontline’s license agreement under seal, criticizing the parties’ agreement that the Board adopt a protective order from a co-pending litigation. CRS Advanced Tech., Inc., v. Frontline Tech., Inc., CBM2012-00005 (SCM), Paper 43 (May 28, 2013) . Before the Board, a party may file a motion to seal accompanied by a proposed protective order, such as the default order in the Patent Trial Practice Guide. CRS shows that the Board may find protective orders from co-pending litigation lacking, even if agreed to by the parties.
Because the Board enforces protective orders it enters, it must understand and agree with their terms. But CRS’s motion provided “no explanation of the contents of the proposed protective order, or how the proposed protective order complies with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.” The Board found that on “cursory review” the proposed protective order did not cover USPTO employees and was otherwise over inclusive. The Board expressed concern that “CRS has not explained why the Board would be obliged to enforce the order having terms and conditions not applicable to the proceeding before the Board.” Further, because a motion to seal is granted for “good cause,” the moving party must explain why redacted information should not be public. The Board dismissed CRS’s motion without prejudice, allowing CRS to file a substitute motion to seal with a different proposed protective order.
The Patent Trial Practice Guide states that protective orders “shall include:”
As illustrated by CRS, while parties may agree to deviate from these provisions, proposed protective orders should account for the handling of documents by the USPTO. Parties should think carefully before submitting an protective order from co-pending litigation to the Board. And when submitting a proposed protective order, parties should explain how the order differs from the default form and why it complies with the Patent Trial Practice Guide.
Afterward: Adding to the Practitioner’s Toolkit
In a subsequent telephone conference, the Board rejected a second proposed protective order newly-drafted by the parties for this matter. Upon the Board’s suggestion, the parties then submitted a joint stipulation as to certain facts that CRS wanted entered into the record about Frontline’s license agreement, thereby mooting the motion to seal and avoiding altogether the necessity of a protective order.
Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
2024 Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Convention
September 4-6, 2024
National Harbor
Webinar
June 13, 2024
Webinar
Conference
4th Spring Pharmaceutical Synchrotron X-Ray Powder Diffraction Workshop
June 10-11, 2024
Basel
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.