Takeaway: Motions to seal must be supported by a detailed explanation as to why the information sought to be sealed is confidential and why there is good cause for granting the motion.

In its Decision, the Board denied eight pending motions to seal.

The Board began by reminding the parties that there is a strong public policy for making all information filed in inter partes review proceedings open to the public and that the standard for granting a motion to seal is “good cause.”  The moving party bears the burden of showing that the information is truly confidential and that the confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open record.  The motion also must include a certification that the moving party in good faith conferred—or attempted to confer–with the opposing party in an effort to reach an agreement on the scope of the protection sought.

The Board then analyzed whether the moving party showed good cause for each of the pending motions.  Both the Petitioner and the Patent Owner failed to introduce evidence (for example, declarations) to prove that the information is confidential.  Their unsupported statements, e.g., that the documents contain “non-public and business sensitive communications” or that the “document was designated as ‘Confidential’ in the related district court litigation” were not sufficient.

Finally, the Board ordered the parties to meet and confer to decide whether sealing is truly necessary and whether redaction could substantially reduce or eliminate the need for filing before filing a further motion to seal.

Search America, Inc. v. Transunion Intelligence, LLC, CBM2013-00037; CBM2013-00038 
Paper 55: Decision – Motions to Seal 
Dated: October 2, 2014 
Before: Thomas L. Giannetti, Carl M. DeFranco, and Patrick M. Boucher
Written by: Giannetti