throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`Entered: November 26, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BLOOMBERG INC.; BLOOMBERG L.P.; BLOOMBERG FINANCE L.P.;
`THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION;
`CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.;
`E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC;
`E*TRADE CLEARING LLC; OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS INC.;
`OPTIONSXPRESS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP.;
`TD AMERITRADE, INC.; TD AMERITRADE IP COMPANY, INC.; and
`THINKORSWIM GROUP INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent of MARKETS-ALERT PTY LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`

`

`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`
`Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd. (“Markets-Alert”) filed a motion for Adrian Pruetz
`
`to appear pro hac vice (Paper 8), which was accompanied by a declaration of Ms.
`
`Pruetz in support of the motion (Paper 101). The petitioner did not file an
`
`opposition to the motion. For the reasons provided below, Markets-Alert’s motion
`
`is granted.
`
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro
`
`hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the
`
`condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. In authorizing a motion for
`
`pro hac vice, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good
`
`cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear. Paper 12.
`
`In its motion, Markets-Alert states that there is good cause for Ms. Pruetz’s
`
`admission because, according to Markets-Alert, lead counsel, Andrew Choung, is a
`
`registered practitioner, and Ms. Pruetz is an experienced litigator and has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Paper 8,
`
`p. 2. More specifically, Markets-Alert directs the Board to Ms. Pruetz’s
`
`declaration where Ms. Pruetz attests to the fact that she represents Markets-Alert as
`
`lead counsel in six district court actions that involve the same patent at issue in this
`
`
`1 This declaration should have been filed as a separate exhibit and labeled properly.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`proceeding. Paper 8, p. 2; paper 10, ¶ 10. In her declaration, Ms. Pruetz also
`
`attests that:
`
`(1) She has been “practicing in the field of intellectual property, and
`
`particularly, patent litigation, for over thirty years.”
`
`(2) She is “a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California
`
`and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court” and several
`
`other Federal and state courts.
`
`(3) She has been “in private practice and litigating patent cases since May
`
`1982, been lead counsel on several hundred patent cases …, and litigated many of
`
`them through both trial and appeal.”
`
`(4) She has “never been suspended, disbarred, sanctioned or cited for
`
`contempt by any court or administrative body.”
`
`(5) She has “never had a court or administrative body deny [her] application
`
`for admission to practice.”
`
`(6) She has “read and will comply with Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of the C.F.R.”
`
`(7) She agrees “to be subject to the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq.
`
`and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).” Paper 10, ¶¶ 1-2, 4-8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`
`We find that Ms. Pruetz has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to
`
`represent Markets-Alert in the instant proceeding. We further recognize that there
`
`is a need for Markets-Alert to have its lead counsel in the related litigations
`
`involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, we determine that Markets-Alert has
`
`established good cause for Ms. Pruetz’s admission.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Markets-Alert’s motion for pro hac vice admission is
`
`granted, namely Ms. Pruetz is authorized to represent Markets-Alert as back-up
`
`counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Markets-Alert is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Pruetz is to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`
`Part 42 of the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case CBM2013-00005 (JYC)
`Patent 7,941,357
`
`Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Tel.: 206.883.2529
`Fax: 206.883.2699
`Email: mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Brian D. Range
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`900 South Capital of Texas Hwy
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746-5546
`Tel.: 512.338.5478
`Fax: 512.338.5499
`Email: brange@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Choung
`GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD
`AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
`10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`achoung@glaserweil.com
`Tel.: 310-553-3000
`Fax: 310-785-3506
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket