`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 36
`
`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
`
`
`
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
