`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 44
` Entered: July 1, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`RELATED SERVICES 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 8,326,924 B1
`____________
`
`
`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 Richard M. Martinez
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Richard M.
`Martinez. Paper 39. The motion is unopposed. Paper 43. 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 19 (Notice listing
`requirements).
`In its motion, Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for Mr.
`Martinez’s pro hac vice admission, as follows: (1) Mr. Martinez has litigated
`patent disputes for at least seventeen years, including patent infringement
`matters before Federal district courts and the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit; and (2) Mr. Martinez 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 39, 3.
`In support of the motion, Mr. Martinez attests to these facts in a
`declaration with sufficient explanations, attests to being a member in good
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`standing of the state bar of Minnesota, and otherwise attests to the
`requirements outlined in Paper 16 for pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 2003.
`The record shows that Mr. Martinez has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding and that good
`cause exists for Mr. Martinez’s admission. Mr. Martinez 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
`Richard M. Martinez 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. Martinez 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. Martinez 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 D. Vandenberg
`Kristen L. Reichenbach
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`kristen.reichenbach@klarquist.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER, & CIRESI LLP
`CAMorton@rkmc.com
`RMSchultz@rkmc.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
