throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: October 8, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`PARVIS, 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)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Asim M.
`
`
`
`Bhansali (Paper 10), Mr. Sharif Jacob (Paper 11), and Mr. David J. Silbert (Paper
`
`12).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, subject to the condition
`
`that lead counsel is a registered practitioner. In authorizing motions for pro hac
`
`vice, the Board requires the moving party to 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. “Notice”; Paper
`
`7.
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioners is Ms. Heidi L. Keefe, a
`
`registered practitioner. In the motions, Petitioners state that there is good cause for
`
`the Board to recognize Mr. Bhansali, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Silbert pro hac vice
`
`during this proceeding, because they are experienced litigating attorneys with an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Paper 10,
`
`1; Paper 11, 1; Paper 12, 1. In addition, the motions state that Mr. Bhansali, Mr.
`
`Jacob, and Mr. Silbert are counsel for LinkedIn and Twitter in related litigation
`
`involving the same patent. Paper 10, 1-2; Paper 11, 1-2; Paper 12, 1-2. Mr.
`
`Bhansali, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Silbert each made an affidavit attesting to, and
`
`
`2 For the purpose of clarity and expediency, IPR2013-00478 is representative and
`all citations are to IPR2013-00478 unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`explaining, these facts. Paper 10, Ex. A; Paper 11, Ex. A; Paper 12, Ex. A.3 Each
`
`
`
`affidavit complies with the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, Petitioners have demonstrated that Mr. Bhansali, Mr.
`
`Jacob, and Mr. Silbert have sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`
`Petitioners in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes a need for
`
`Petitioners to have related litigation counsel involved in this proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioners have also established good cause for admitting Mr.
`
`Bhansali, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Silbert.
`
`
`
`Attention is directed to the Office’s Final Rule adopting new Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct. See Changes to Representation of Others Before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr. 3,
`
`2013). The Final Rule also removes Part 10 of Title 37, Code of Federal
`
`Regulations. The changes set forth in that Final Rule including the USPTO’s Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct took effect on May 3, 2013. Therefore, Mr. Bhansali, Mr.
`
`Jacob, and Mr. Silbert are subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct
`
`that took effect May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners’ motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Asim M. Bhansali, Mr. Sharif Jacob, and Mr. David J. Silbert for these
`
`proceedings are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners are to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent them as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`
`
`3 Petitioners are reminded that each exhibit must be uniquely numbered
`sequentially and must be appropriately labeled. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bhansali, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Silbert are 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. Bhansali, Mr. Jacob, and Mr. Silbert are
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00478 (Patent 5,544,352)
`IPR2013-00479 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00480 (Patent 5,832,494)
`IPR2013-00481 (Patent 6,233,571)
`
`FOR PETITIONERS:
`
`
`
`
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`COOLEY, LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`dcpatentdocketing@cooley.com.
`
`David Silbert
`KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
`djs@kvn.com
`efiling@kvn.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Martin M. Zoltick
`Nancy J. Linck
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`mzoltick@rfem.com
`nlinck@rfem.com
`SRA-IPR@rfem.com
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket