`IPR2013-00092
`Customer Number 22,852
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB; and
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,218,930
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Administrative Patent Judges Jameson Lee, Joni Y. Chang, and Justin T. Arbes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`GREG DOVEL, ESQ. PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners Sony Corporation of America, Axis Communications AB, and
`
`Axis Communications, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”) respectfully oppose the
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Greg Dovel, Esq. Pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. 42.10 (“the Motion”) and ask that the Motion be denied.
`
`Mr. Dovel cannot be admitted pro hac vice in this matter under the terms of
`
`the Stipulated Protective Order for a district court litigation in which he is lead
`
`counsel for the Patent Owner. The Stipulated Protective Order prohibits him from
`
`being “counsel of record” in the present inter partes review. The applicable
`
`section of the Stipulated Protective Order exists to prevent precisely what the
`
`Motion requests—counsel with access to Petitioners’ confidential information
`
`from serving as counsel of record in a Patent Office proceeding involving the
`
`patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“the ’930 patent”).
`
`In addition, although Mr. Dovel has experience litigating the ’930 patent, the
`
`Motion fails to demonstrate that he has “established familiarity” with all of the
`
`prior art and validity issues involved in this inter partes review. Indeed, two of the
`
`prior art references presented for inter partes review were not asserted in any of
`
`the prior litigations handled by Mr. Dovel. Moreover, the Patent Owner is already
`
`represented by registered patent counsel.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT IDENTIFYING MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(a), Petitioners identify the following
`
`purported statements of fact in the Motion which are disputed.
`
`1.
`
` Petitioners dispute the statement in the Motion that its “statement of
`
`facts shows that there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Dovel pro hac
`
`vice.” See Motion, p. 1. As discussed herein, sufficient good cause is absent in
`
`view of the restrictions of the Stipulated Protective Order, which the Motion fails
`
`to even acknowledge or address.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners dispute the statement in the Motion that Mr. Dovel “has a
`
`well-established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.”
`
`See Motion, p. 3. This inter partes review involves prior art and validity issues
`
`that were not presented in any of the prior litigations related to the ’930 patent.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`The Patent Owner’s Motion should be denied for two reasons. The primary
`
`reason is that Mr. Dovel’s appearance as counsel of record in this inter partes
`
`review would violate the Stipulated Protective Order (Ex. 1016) entered in
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al., No.: 6:11-cv-
`
`00492-LED-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (“the Litigation”). Secondly, the Motion fails to
`
`demonstrate Mr. Dovel’s “established familiarity” with the subject matter at issue
`
`in this inter partes review and that there is good cause for granting the Motion,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`despite the restrictions in the Stipulated Protective Order. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10(c),
`
`42.20(c).
`
`A. The Stipulated Protective Order Prohibits Mr. Dovel From Being
`Counsel of Record in This Inter Partes Review
`
`The Stipulated Protective Order (Ex. 1016) was entered in the Litigation on
`
`September 7, 2012. It allows the Patent Owner’s outside litigation counsel to
`
`participate in Patent Office proceedings involving the ’930 patent, subject to two
`
`important restrictions. See Ex. 1016, ¶ 12. First, the counsel cannot be “counsel of
`
`record” in the Patent Office proceeding. Second, the counsel cannot divulge
`
`confidential technical information received from any of the defendants (including
`
`the Petitioners) to the Patent Owner’s patent counsel or agents in the Patent Office
`
`proceeding. In particular, according to the Stipulated Protective Order:
`
`[T]he plaintiff shall create an ethical wall between those
`persons with access to technical information (e.g., information
`relating to the functionality of the disclosing parties’ products rather
`than confidential economic information relating to such products)
`designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and
`those individuals who prepare, prosecute, supervise, or assist in the
`prosecution of any patent application pertaining to Power over
`Ethernet technology. Outside litigation counsel for the plaintiff who
`obtains, receives, accesses, or otherwise learns of, in whole or in part,
`technical information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL,” however, may participate in any reexamination
`proceeding of the patent at issue in this Action, except that outside
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`counsel for the plaintiff may not act as counsel of record in any
`reexamination proceeding and may not reveal the contents of any
`“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” information
`to reexamination patent counsel or agents.
`
`Id. (emphases added).1 The Stipulated Protective Order also mandates that
`
`confidential materials “shall be used solely for the purposes of [the
`
`Litigation]” and not for any other purpose. Id. at ¶ 23.
`
`Mr. Dovel is “outside counsel” for the “plaintiff” (the Patent Owner) in the
`
`Litigation. Indeed, the Motion and accompanying declaration state that he is “lead
`
`counsel.” See Motion, p. 2; Ex. 2001, p. 2. Mr. Dovel is thus prohibited from
`
`participating as “counsel of record” in any Patent Office proceeding involving the
`
`’930 patent. Although the language of Stipulated Protective Order does not
`
`specifically identify “inter partes review” proceedings, the phrase “any
`
`reexamination proceeding” is used broadly to encompass all forms of Patent Office
`
`1 Petitioners acknowledge that this provision in the Stipulated Protective Order is
`
`not completely reciprocal and that counsel for the Petitioners also serve as counsel
`
`in the Litigation. See Ex. 1016, ¶ 13. This is not inconsistent because, as
`
`explained below, the primary purpose of the provision is to protect defendants’
`
`confidential information and any unauthorized disclosure or use thereof
`
`(inadvertent or otherwise) during a Patent Office proceeding for the ’930 patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings (e.g., ex parte or inter partes) involving the ’930 patent.2 Ex. 1016,
`
`¶ 12 (emphasis added). Thus, this inter partes review falls within the restrictions
`
`of the Stipulated Protective Order.
`
`More importantly, the purpose of these restrictions in the Stipulated
`
`Protective Order is to prevent the Patent Owner’s outside litigation counsel,
`
`steeped with knowledge of confidential information regarding the defendants’
`
`accused products, from improper use or disclosure of such sensitive information
`
`during a Patent Office proceeding involving the ’930 patent. Indeed, the basic
`
`rationale behind these restrictions is that, even assuming the best of intentions,
`
`“certain activities present an unacceptable risk of the inadvertent use or disclosure
`
`of sensitive information.” Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc., No. 2:03-CV-333,
`
`
`2 Even if the Patent Owner asserts a narrow interpretation of “reexamination
`
`proceeding” for the purposes of distinguishing reexamination proceedings (ex
`
`parte or inter partes) from any other type of Patent Office proceeding involving
`
`the ’930 patent, such an interpretation would still be unavailing in view of the
`
`scope of the language (i.e., “any”), the purpose of the restriction, and the fact that
`
`inter partes review is the successor of inter partes reexamination. Compare Pub.
`
`L. No. 112-29, sec. 6, § 311, 125 Stat. 284, 299 (2011) (codified at 35 U.S.C. §
`
`311), with 35 U.S.C. § 311 (2002).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`2006 WL 3741891, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2006) (Ex. 1017). The Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board has also recently recognized the risks of lead trial counsel
`
`serving as counsel of record in post-grant proceedings. See Decision, Versata
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, CBM2012-00001 (MPT),
`
`Paper 21 (Ex. 1018) (denying motion for admission in view of petitioner’s
`
`concerns about lead counsel for patent owner complying with district court
`
`protective order and evidence of lead counsel’s prior infractions). In this case,
`
`Petitioners have each produced “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” technical
`
`documents to the Patent Owner in the Litigation. See Production Letter from Axis
`
`to Network-1 (December 19, 2013) (Ex. 1019); Production Letter from Sony to
`
`Network-1 (December 19, 2013) (Ex. 1020). Moreover, discovery is on-going in
`
`the Litigation and Petitioners will produce more confidential documents before the
`
`Board decides whether to institute this inter partes review. There would be an
`
`unacceptably high risk of improper use or disclosure of Petitioners’ confidential
`
`material in the inter partes review if Mr. Dovel is allowed to serve as counsel of
`
`record and take an active role in drafting claim amendments, taking depositions,
`
`presenting oral arguments, and other activities in connection with the proceeding.
`
`Given this serious risk and the restrictions of the Stipulated Protective Order, the
`
`Motion fails to establish good cause for Mr. Dovel’s admission.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Motion Fails to Demonstrate Mr. Dovel’s “Established
`Familiarity” with the Subject Matter Involved in this Inter Partes
`Review
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), a pro hac vice motion “may be granted upon
`
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” (Emphasis added.)
`
`The Motion fails to make such a showing.
`
`The Motion describes Mr. Dovel’s general litigation experience as well as
`
`his experience litigating the ’930 patent in the current Litigation and prior
`
`litigations. See Motion, pp. 1-3. The motion is silent, however, regarding the
`
`actual subject matter presented in Petitioners’ petition for inter partes review.
`
`Petitioners set forth four prior art positions in their petition of December 19,
`
`2012. Of those four positions, Petitioners understand (based on information
`
`available to them) that two of the positions are based on references never asserted
`
`in any of the prior litigations involving the ’930 patent. In particular, the positions
`
`that claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930 patent are (1) anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,345,592 to Woodmas and (2) anticipated by Japanese Publication No. H6-
`
`189535 to Satou do not appear to have been previously litigated. Thus, not only
`
`does the Motion fail to establish Mr. Dovel’s experience with the actual validity
`
`issues presented in this inter partes review, the Motion fails to address the newly
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted prior art references or demonstrate Mr. Dovel’s “established familiarity”
`
`with the same.
`
`In addition, the Patent Owner is already represented by registered patent
`
`counsel in this inter partes review. The Patent Owner is represented by Buchanan
`
`Ingersoll & Rooney PC, a law firm with more than 450 attorneys and other
`
`professionals. See Martindale-Hubbell, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC – Firm
`
`Profile, http://www.martindale.com/Buchanan-Ingersoll-Rooney-PC/law-firm-
`
`293073.htm (Ex. 1021). Its counsel that filed the Motion has been a registered
`
`patent attorney for more than 35 years (since May 19, 1977). Its counsel also
`
`presumably has some prior experience with the ’930 patent in view of the
`
`Buchanan firm’s appearance in the pending (now stayed) ex parte reexamination
`
`granted September 5, 2012 (Control No. 90/012,401). Moreover, the ’930 patent
`
`contains only seven pages total, including three drawings and less than two pages
`
`of written description. The relatively limited disclosure of the ’930 patent
`
`decreases the significance of Mr. Dovel’s prior experience with the patent and the
`
`value it may have in this inter partes review. For these additional reasons, good
`
`cause does not exist for the Motion.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion be denied.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2013
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Lionel M. Lavenue/
`Lionel M. Lavenue (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 46,859
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Dr.
`Two Freedom Square
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel. 571.203.2750
`Fax. 202.408.4400
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos (Backup
`Counsel)
`Reg. No. 36,532
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Tel. 202.408.4263
`Fax. 202.408.4400
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners’ Certificate of Service
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.P.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that I
`
`
`
`caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing “Petitioners’
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Greg Dovel,
`
`Esq. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.10” by Federal Express delivery, on this 1st day of
`
`February, 2013 on the Patent Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent
`
`Owner as follows:
`
`
`
`BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 KING STREET, SUITE 500
`ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-2727
`
`Dated: February 1, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Troy L. Gwartney/
`Troy L. Gwartney
`Reg. No. 61,388
`(Attorney of Record)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Dr.
`Two Freedom Square
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel. 571.203.2700
`Fax. 202.408.4400
`
`
`
`