`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 31
`Entered: March 24, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`COMPANY, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM LP, HOTELS.COM GP,
`LLC, HOTWIRE, INC., ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC., PRICELINE.COM,
`INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, and YAHOO! INC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`METASEARCH SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,236,924
`_______________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of J. Christopher Carraway
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`
`Petitioner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of J. Christopher
`
`Carraway. Paper 28. The motion is unopposed. For the reasons provided below,
`
`the 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. For example, where the
`
`lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause
`
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual
`
`seeking to appear in this proceeding. See Paper 16 (Notice listing requirements).
`
`In its motion, Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for
`
`Mr. Carraway’s pro hac vice admission, as follows: (1) Mr. Carraway has litigated
`
`patent disputes for at least seventeen years; and (2) Mr. Carraway has an
`
`established familiarity with the relevant technology, as he is involved actively in
`
`parallel litigations in co-pending district court litigation involving the ’924 Patent.
`
`Paper 28 at 1–2.
`
`In support of the motion, Mr. Carraway attests to these facts in a declaration
`
`with sufficient explanations, attests to being a member in good standing of the state
`
`bars of Oregon, Colorado, Washington, and Minnesota, and otherwise attests to the
`
`requirements outlined in Paper 16 for pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 1019.
`
`The record shows that Mr. Carraway has sufficient legal and technical
`
`qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding and that good cause exists
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`for Mr. Carraway’s admission. Mr. Carraway will be permitted to appear pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`J. Christopher Carraway for this proceeding is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Carraway 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Carraway is 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.
`
`
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`John Vandenberg
`John.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`Kristen Reichenbach
`Kristen.reichenbach@klarquist.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Cyrus Morton
`camorton@rkmc.com
`
`Ryan Schultz
`rmschultz@rkmc.com
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`