`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
` Entered: October 16, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and
` VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Cases CBM2013-00052 (Patent 7,904,326)
`CBM2013-00053 (Patent 7,958,024)
`CBM2013-00054 (Patent 7,908,304) 1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANEKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This order addresses an issue that is identical in all three cases. Therefore, we
`exercise discretion to issue one order to be filed in each of the three cases. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`CASES CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`
`
`Callidus Software, Inc. (“Callidus”) filed motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Assad H. Rajani (Paper 8) and Mr. Michael S. Tonkinson (Paper
`10) in each of the three related cases.2 The motions are unopposed. The motions
`are granted.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro hac
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In authorizing motions
`for pro hac vice, the Board requires the moving party to provide 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 in this
`proceeding. “Notice”; Paper 4.
`In its motions, Callidus states that there is good cause for the Board to
`recognize Mr. Rajani and Mr. Tonkinson pro hac vice during this proceeding,
`because they are experienced litigating attorneys with an established familiarity
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Papers 8 and 10. In addition,
`the motion states that Mr. Rajani and Mr. Tonkinson are counsel for Callidus in the
`related litigation between Callidus and Versata. Id. at 4. Mr. Rajani and
`Mr. Tonkinson each made a declaration attesting to, and explaining, these facts.
`Exhibits 1013 and 1014. Each declaration complies with the requirements set forth
`in the Notice.
`Upon consideration, Callidus has demonstrated that Mr. Rajani and Mr.
`Tonkinson have sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Callidus
`
`
`2 Citations are to CBM2013-00052.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASES CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for
`Callidus to have related litigation counsel involved in this proceeding.
`Accordingly, Callidus has also established that there is good cause for admitting
`Mr. Rajani and Mr. Tonkinson.
`It is
`ORDERED that the Callidus motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`Assad H. Rajani and Mr. Michael S. Tonkinson for these proceedings are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Callidus is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Rajani and Mr. Tonkinson are 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Rajani and Mr. Tonkinson are subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Deborah E. Fishman
`fishmand@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`Jeffrey A. Miller
`millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kent B. Chambers
`kchambers@tcchlaw.com
`
`Alisa Lipski
`alipski@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
