直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

What Information Will the USPTO Allow to Be Sealed During an IPR?

April 24, 2013

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision addressing the treatment of confidential information submitted during an inter partes review (IPR). In Garmin Int’l Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. L.L.C., IPR2012-0001, Paper 36 (April 5, 2013), PTAB Judge Jameson Lee carefully addressed whether a range of information could be properly sealed (even though the motion to seal itself was unopposed).

Of particular interest, exchanges between the inventor and his patent attorney, submitted to prove pre-filing conception and reasonable diligence, were not permitted to be sealed. Judge Lee balanced the “strong public policy for making all information filed in an inter partes review in support of a substantive argument open to the public” against the inventor’s statement of prejudice. The inventor acknowledged that attorney client privilege had been waived with respect to the documents reflecting communications with his attorney, but argued that making the documents available to the public “could impose a heavy burden on [him] to defend against the broad-waiver argument which, although without merit, likely would be raised by other parties.” Judge Lee rejected that argument, stating that “the strong public interest in having open access to factual evidence submitted by a party in support of a substantive contention” outweighed the alleged prejudice. On the other hand, Judge Lee found that personal confidential information having no relevance to the case and unimportant business confidential information may be sealed.

The ruling provides helpful guidance for preparing motions to seal during inter partes review and raises interesting questions regarding the confidentiality of conception and diligence documents in particular. The ruling demonstrates that an inventor seeking to seal confidential materials should be prepared to provide a detailed explanation of any prejudice that would result from public disclosure of the information on an item-by-item basis, keeping in mind the public interest.

Tags

confidential information, motion to seal, 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. 

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP