Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 23
`Entered: February 20, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`Case IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`Case IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`Case IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This decision addresses issues that are identical in the four cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one decision to be entered in each of the four cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in their papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Software Rights Archive, LLC (“SRA”) filed motions for pro
`
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`hac vice admission of Mr. Victor G. Hardy. IPR2013-00478, Paper 19; IPR2013-
`
`00479, Paper 20; IPR2013-00480, Paper 20; IPR2013-00481, Paper 18.2 The
`
`motions are unopposed. For reasons discussed below, the 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. 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). The Board previously authorized the parties to file motions
`
`for pro hac vice, requiring that the moving party provide a statement of facts
`
`showing there is 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 6, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition, 2 (incorporating requirements
`
`in the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-
`
`00010).3
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for SRA is Martin M. Zoltick, a registered
`
`practitioner. In the motions, SRA states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Hardy pro hac vice during this proceeding, because he is an
`
`experienced patent litigation attorney with substantial experience with the patents
`
`at issue in these proceedings. Paper 19, 2. For example, the motions state that Mr.
`
`Hardy is counsel for SRA in related litigation involving the same patents. Id. Mr.
`
`
`2 For expediency, IPR2013-00478 is representative and all subsequent citations are
`to IPR2013-00478 unless otherwise noted.
`3 After the Notice was entered, an expanded panel of the Board updated the
`requirements for filing a motion for pro hac vice admission. See IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`
`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`
`
`Hardy submitted an affidavit attesting to, and explaining, these facts. IPR2013-
`
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`00478, Ex. 2007; IPR2013-00479, Ex. 2009; IPR2013-00480, Ex. 2002; IPR2013-
`
`00481, Ex. 2002. Each affidavit complies with the requirements set forth in the
`
`Notice, and contains Mr. Hardy’s agreement to be subject to the Office’s Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id.
`
`Upon consideration, SRA has demonstrated that Mr. Hardy has sufficient
`
`legal and technical qualifications to represent it in this proceeding, and the Board
`
`recognizes a need for SRA to have related litigation counsel involved.
`
`Accordingly, SRA has established good cause for Mr. Hardy’s admission. Mr.
`
`Hardy 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 motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Victor G. Hardy for these proceedings are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hardy 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
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hardy 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`
`FOR PETITIONERS:
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`Heidi Keefe
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Martin Zoltick
`mzoltick@rfem.com
`
`
`Nancy Linck
`nlinck@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`