`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`
`Entered: August 12, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EBAY ENTERPRISE, INC. and EBAY, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`LAWRENCE B. LOCKWOOD
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`On July 21, 2014, Petitioner filed motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Mr. Mark P. Wine. The motions are unopposed. For the reasons
`provided below, Petitioner’s 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, subject to
`the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. In authorizing
`motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to
`
`1 This order addresses similar issues raised in both cases. We exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however,
`are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)
`
`provide a statement of facts showing 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. Paper 7, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`Petition, 2 (incorporating requirements in the “Order – Authorizing Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-00639). 2
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Don Daybell, is a
`registered practitioner. Petitioner’s motions indicate that there is good cause
`for the Board to recognize Mr. Wine pro hac vice during this proceeding,
`and is supported by the declaration of Mr. Wine. Ex. 1015.
`In particular, the motions explain that Mr. Wine is an experienced
`litigating attorney, and Mr. Wine declares that he has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding, as he was
`counsel in a related district case involving the same patents involved in these
`covered business method patent reviews. Paper 28, 3-5; Ex. 1013.
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated that Mr. Wine
`possesses sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner
`in these proceedings, and the Board recognizes that there is a need for
`Petitioner to have Mr. Wine involved. Accordingly, Petitioner has
`established good cause for Mr. Wine’s admission. Mr. Wine 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 Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Mark P. Wine are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mark P. Wine is authorized to
`
`2 Citations are to CBM2014-00025.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00025 (Patent 7,010,508)
`CBM2014-00026 (Patent 5,576,951)
`
`represent Petitioner as back-up counsel only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent Petitioner as lead counsel for these
`proceedings; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mark P. Wine 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, and to
`be 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:
`
`Don Daybell
`James Maune
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ddaybell@orrick.com
`jmaune@orrick.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Sterne
`Donald Featherstone
`Jason Eisenberg
`Richard Bemben
`Byron Pickard
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`rsterne@skgf.com
`donf-PTAB@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`rbemben-PTAB@skgf.com
`bpickard-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`