Case NO. IPRZOI3-00480 (MPT)
`Patent NO. 5,832,494
`
`Paper NO.
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC, LINKEDIN CORR, and TWITTER, INC,
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVES, LII/C
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2013—00480 (MPT)
`Patent NO. 5,832,494
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`UNDER 37 CPR § 4210(0)
`
`77455101
`
`

`

`Petitioners Linkedln Corp. and Twitter, Inc. respectfully request that the
`
`Board recognize Asim M. Bhansali, Esq, as counsel pro hac vice during this
`
`proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed in. compliance
`
`with and pursuant to the “Order———-Authorizing Motion for Pro H616 Vice
`
`Admission” in Case No. IPR2013~00010 (MPT).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`As required by the Order, the following statement of facts shows that there is
`
`good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Bhansali pro hac vice.
`
`Mr. Bhansali is a highly experienced patent litigation attorney, who has been
`
`involved in numerous patent litigations before the federal district courts, the US.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the US. International Trade
`
`Commission. He has particularly deep experience litigating complex software
`
`related patents, such as the patents at issue in the instant Petition. Mr. Bhansali’s
`
`biography is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Mr. Bhansali has substantial experience with US; Patent No. 5,832,494.
`
`
`““““Mr.j‘Bhansali“‘draftedandfor I‘eVisemefifimfi‘mW “
`
`Moreover, Mr. Bhansali represents Linkedln Corp. and Twitter, Inc. in the co—
`
`pending litigation between the parties, Sofnmre Rig/its Archive LLC v. Facebook,
`
`774551.01
`
`

`

`Inc, No. ’5: 12—cv—03 970 RMW (ND. Cal. 2012); Software Rights Archive LLC v.
`
`Lin/cedln Corp, No. 5:12—cv~03971 RMW (ND. Call. 2012); and Software Rights
`
`Archive LLC v. Twitter, Inc, No. 5:12—CV—03972 RMW (ND. C211. 2012). AS a
`
`result, Mr. Bhansali has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding, including extensive knowledge of the printed prior art submitted
`in the instant Petition, the district court’s prior claim construction order, and
`
`related matters.
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner does not oppose Mr. Bhansali appearing pro hac
`
`vice during this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Petitioners respectfully submit that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Bhansali as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`III.
`
`AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEEKING TO
`
`APPEAR
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is accompanied by an
`
`Affidavit of Asim M; Bhansali as required by the Order.
`
`
`
`774551.01
`
`

`

`DATED: October 2, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Heidi Kee 9/
`
`Heidi Keefe
`
`Registration No. 40,673
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`Cooley LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (650) 843~5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`774551.01
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`,
`
`H,
`
`,
`
`,
`
`,
`
`. M. u
`
`.
`
`.
`
`, “ MA.M_. .
`
`.
`
`“A.
`
`.mmmm‘ ......‘.““.M.M-7.M.".‘.....""‘M......rAAr..‘A..‘wwnmm........“MAM...“WMM,_-,_AN,.7..M“N..............................
`
`

`

`KEKER & VAN NESTLLP
`
`Asim M. Bhansali
`
`Partner
`abhansali@kvn.com
`Tel. (415) 676-2235
`
`Education
`University of Texas School of Law, J.D., with honors, 1996
`
`University ofTexas at Austin , B.B.A, with high honors, 1993
`
`Prior Experience
`Partner at Smyser, Kaplan & Veselka, LLP
`
`Munger, Toiles & Olson, LLP
`
`Clerkships
`Hon. Ferdinand F. Fernandez
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 1996-1997
`
`Bar Admissions
`California
`
`New York
`
`Texas
`
`Overview
`Mr. Bhansali's experience spans a wide-range of civil litigation and trials, with particular emphasis on intellectual
`property and antitrust matters. He has handled patent disputes in district courts and the U.S. International Trade
`Commission for cases that have involved computer software, internet content delivery, digital imaging,
`. telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals. His antitrust experience has included representing corporations in the
`credit-card, pharmaceutical, and video-game industries as both plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, Mr. Bhansali
`has defended clients in several class actions brought under federal and California law.
`
`In 2009, Mr. Bhansali was named one of the Daily Journal's Top 20 Under 40 lawyers in California. He serves on the
`executive committees of the Northern District of California Federal Bar Association Chapter and the State Bar of
`California Section of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law.
`
`Patent Cases of Note
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the
`International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents
`that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission.
`Consistent with lTC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set
`approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six
`months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold .
`
`Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in
`its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the International
`Trade Commission (lTC), claiming our client had infringed on 20 patents related to various computer-related
`technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management, and digital signal processing. The
`lTC hearing that went to decision resulted in a favorable ruling , and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first
`Android handset maker licensed by Apple.
`
`Caritas Technologies v. Com cast Cable Communications, LLC: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`upheld our successful defense of a $2.2 billion patent infringement claim against Com cast Cable Communications,
`LLC. The plaintiff had asserted that Comcast's Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over Internet
`Protocol (VoiP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was
`sustained on appeal.
`
`Purdue Pharma v. lmpax Laboratories, Inc.: We defended lmpax Laboratories, Inc. against patent claims related to
`generic oxycodone products. Following the Federal Circuit's reversal and remand of inequitable conduct findings in
`an earlier lawsuit brought against another defendant, we brought a revised challenge under the terms of the Federal
`Circuit's order. We then secured a settlement that released our client from all past liability, and gave the company a
`limited license.
`
`Plaintiff v. Content Delivery Service: We defended a start-up content delivery company in a multi-patent lawsuit
`brought by our client's established competitor. The suit challenged our client's Internet content delivery service. The
`lawsuit was settled when another company acquired our client for approximately $130 million.
`
`Keker & Van Nest LLP I 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 I 415 391 5400 I kvn.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`KEKER & VAN NESTLLP
`
`Plaintiff v. Interactive TV Software Provider: We defended patent infringement claims related to interactive
`television. The case settled on confidential terms following mediation.
`
`Patent Holder v. Wireless Network Provider: We are currently defending a major wireless network provider in a
`four-patent lawsuit involving various aspects of digital cellular network technology.
`
`Additional Cases of Note
`Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.: We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S.
`history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules
`affected member banks' ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for
`billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
`
`Abbott and Fournier v. Teva, lmpax Laboratories, Inc.: We represented lmpax Laboratories, Inc. against Abbott
`and the French pharmaceutical company Fournier in a plaintiff-side antitrust case that alleged monopolization in a
`drug market. We led the trial presentation for all of the plaintiffs, and secured a settlement for Imp ax midway through
`the trial.
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation:
`We represented the world's leading semiconductor foundry, TSMC, against China's leading semiconductor
`manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case ever tried. SMIC owed its existence to technology stolen
`from our client, and faced our damages claim of $2 billion, which wou(d have exceeded SMIC's entire market value.
`The parties produced nearly 18 million pages of documents and conducted 266 days of deposition in the U.S. and in
`Asia. Following a jury verdict in favor of our client, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130
`million of its company stock. Ultimately TSMC's goal was to protect its intellectual property, not shut down its
`competitor, and so settled for far less than it could have recovered. For foreign companies that market their goods
`and services in the U.S., this case established that California's trade secret statute will protect the intellectual property
`essential to those goods and services, even if the theft occurred in Asia.
`
`Plaintiff v. Resort Group: We represented various defendants in a putative class action asserting RICO, fraud, and
`contract claims arising from purchases of timeshares in Mexican resorts. The court granted our motion and dismissed
`the case entirely.
`
`In re Budeprion Multidistrict Litigation: In a multi-district class action, plaintiffs challenged a drug company's
`product label under California's unfair competition law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. We settled the case on
`extremely favorable terms to our client.
`
`Awards and Honors
`
`Listed in Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Litigation, 2013-2014
`•
`•
`Top 20 Lawyers Under Age 40, Daily Journal, 2008
`• Order of the Coif, University of Texas School of Law
`•
`Executive editor, Texas Law Review
`
`Publications and Speaking Engagements
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`Presenter, "How Your BA in English Can Help Your Patent Law Practice," BASF Barristers Club, 2013
`Presenter, "Damages/Injunctive Relief," Thomson Reuters' Patent Disputes Conference, 2013
`Presenter, "Developments in Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation," Practising Law Institute, 7th Annual Patent
`Law Institute, 2013
`• Moderator, "Judges' Panel on Effectively Presenting Expert Witnesses," State Bar Antitrust Section's Golden
`State Institute, 2012
`Author, "ABC guide to lTC," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2012
`Presenter, "The Intersection of 17200 & Class Actions," Bridgeport Annual Class Action Litigation Conference,
`2012
`Presenter, "Antitrust Issues Stemming From Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) Disputes," Bloomberg,
`2012
`Presenter, "Parallel Proceedings in Paragraph IV Disputes: Strategies for Balancing and Streamlining
`Proceedings Before Federal Courts, PTO and lTC," ACI's Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, 2012
`Co-author, "ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Pharmaceutical Patent Litigators," American Bar
`Association , 2012
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Keker & Van Nest LLP 1 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 1 415 391 5400 1 kvn.com
`
`

`

`KEKER & VAN NESTLLP
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Co-author, "Antitrust Issues that Arise in ANDA Disputes," Bloomberg BNA Pharmaceutical Law & Industry
`Report, 2012
`Presenter, "Litigating in the International Trade Commission," Practising Law Institute, 6th Annual Patent Law
`Institute, 2012
`Presenter, "The Intersection of 17200 & Class Actions," Bridgeport Annual Class Action Litigation Conference,
`2011
`Presenter, "Litigation Inequitable Conduct in the Wake of Therasense," Practising Law Institute, 5th Annual
`Patent Law Institute, 2011
`·
`Author, "Reverse Payment Settlements in Brand v. Generic Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation," The Journal of
`the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Spring 2010
`Author, "Offensive Collateral Estoppel In Civil Antitrust Cases: Parklane Hosiery and the Seventh Amendment,"
`The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Fall 2010
`Program chair and author "Application of a Judgment from Government Antitrust Proceedings in Subsequent
`Private Litigation, "Practising Law Institute, Current Trends and Issues in Antitrust Litigation, 2010
`Presenter, "Practice Before the Federal Circuit," and author "Prerequisites to Federal Circuit Review of
`Judgment," Practising Law Institute, 4th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2010
`Presenter, "Litigation at the Patent-Antitrust Interface," and author "Reverse-Payment Settlements After the
`Federal Circuit's in Re: Ciprofloxacin Decision" Practising Law Institute, 3d Annual Patent Law Institute, 2009
`Program moderator, "The Use of Economic and Statistical Models in Civil and Criminal Litigation," Federal Bar
`Association, N.D. Cal. Chapter:, 2009
`Presenter, "Recent Decisions in Antitrust Law and Their Effect on Patent Litigation," and author "2007 Supreme
`Court Antitrust Developments" Practising Law Institute, 2d Annual Patent Law Institute, 2008
`Presenter, "Handling Claim Construction on Appeal," Law Seminars International, Patent Claim Construction
`Workshop, 2007
`Presenter, "Litigation Strategies," Law Seminars International, Patent Claim Construction, 2007
`
`Professional Affiliations
`
`Executive Committee, State Bar of California Antitrust Section
`•
`Vice President, Northern District of California Chapter of the Federal Bar Association
`•
`• Member, American Bar Association Antitrust Section
`• Member, N.D. Cal. Practice Programs Committee
`•
`Pattern Jury Charge Committee (Business, Consumer & Employment), State Bar of Texas, 2001-2004
`•
`President of the Board of Directors, Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Center, 2010-2012
`
`Keker & Van Nest LLP 1 633 Battery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 1 415 391 5400 1 kvn.com
`
`

`

`AFFIDAVIT OF ASIM M. BHANSALI IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Asim M. Bhansali, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby attest to the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of California, as well as
`
`the Bar of Texas, Bar ofNew York, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, U.S. District
`
`Court for the Southern District of California, District of Colorado, Eastern District
`
`of Texas, Northern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, Southern District
`
`of Texas, Southern District of New York, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth
`
`Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board's Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in pm1 42 of the C.F .R.
`
`774551.0 I
`
`4
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility
`
`set fmth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20, et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have not applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in any
`
`other proceeding in the last three (3) years.
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney, with experience with complex
`
`litigation in both state and federal court. I am familiar with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding, including the prior art on which Petitioners rely in this
`
`request and U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494 ("the '494 Patent"). I have also reviewed
`
`the pe1tinent issues of claim construction that have been briefed in this proceeding.
`
`9.
`
`I represent Linkedin Corp. and Twitter, Inc. in the civil actions
`
`Software Rights Archive LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-03970 RMW (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2012); Software Rights Archive LLC v. Linkedin Corp., No. 5:12-cv-03971
`
`RMW (N.D. Cal. 2012); and Software Rights Archive LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No.
`
`5:12-cv-03972 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2012) in which the '494 Patent has been asse1ted.
`
`Asim M. Bhansali
`KEIZER & VAN NEST LLP
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-391-5400
`Fax: 415-397-7188
`Email: ABhansali@kvn.com
`
`77455101
`
`5
`
`

`

`CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
`·~~
`}
`State of California
`~c/Vn. r:~CI.Sco
`On 9/; 7/J! I 3
`before me, '""""-.::.=-.;'----"---"--=...<......>....~-.:-=.-~..-:=-:-~~~=-:-:-:-+--·~-t-c_6_/,_c.._· _
`personal~ appeared~~~~'~'~~~'-~~~· ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
`
`County of
`
`Name(s) of Signer(s)
`
`who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to
`be the person(.s)-whose namefs) is/are-subscribed to the
`within
`instrument and acknowledged
`to me
`that
`he/sne/t11ey- executed the same in his/heF/their authorized
`capacity(ies-f, and that by his/hef/their signature(s}-on the
`instrument the person{s}, or the entity upon behalf of
`which the person(sj-acted, executed the instrument.
`
`I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws
`of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is
`true and correct.
`
`Place Notary Seal Above
`
`WITNESS m~nd .offici~l seal.
`
`Signature ~A a ·~~/"----'
`
`l
`OPTIONAL-------------------------
`Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
`and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
`
`Signature of Notary Public
`
`Description of Attached Document
`Title or Type of Document: Jl-.+{: c/a VI, f
`Document Date: 1/ { 7 /2.01 3
`.
`
`Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
`
`Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
`
`Signer's Name: k1111 fl1 · Biz /J..r11 S a.J, .
`~ Individual
`D Corporate Officer- Title(s):
`D Partner- D Limited D General
`D Attorney in Fact
`D Trustee
`D Guardian or Conservator
`D Other:----------------~
`
`RIGHT THUMBPRINT
`OF SIGNER
`Top o f thumb here
`
`/ k /JtA /4. Bit_ a-tS«-{1 .
`Number of Pages: ___ ~-------------
`
`Signer's Name: ___________________________ _
`D Individual
`D Corporate Officer- Title(s) : ----------------~
`D Partner - D Limited D General
`D Attorney in Fact
`D Trustee
`D Guardian or Conservator
`D Other: __________ _
`
`RIGHTTHUMBPRINT
`OF SIGNER
`Top of thumb here
`
`Signer Is Representing: ________ _
`
`Signer Is Representing: ____ _
`
`~'@~~~~~~~~'@
`© 2007 National Notary Association • 9350 De Solo Ave., P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 • www.NationaiNotary.org
`Item #5907 Reorder: Call Toll-Free 1-800·876-6827
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 CFR section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`the attached PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION,
`including all exhibits and related documents, is being served Via Federal Express
`on the 2d day of October, 2013, the same day as the filing of the above-identified
`document in the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board, upon the attorneys of record for the patent owner:
`
`Martin M. Zoltick
`
`Nancy J. Linck
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck PC
`607 14‘h Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington DC. 20005
`
`and upon the counsel of record for the patent owner in the litigation before the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case Docket
`No. CV—12~3970—LB:
`
`W. Paul Schuck
`Thomas Whitelaw LLP
`
`Victor G. Hardy
`Chester J. Shiu
`
`Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
`San Francisco, CA 94111—4037
`
`Dinovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP
`7000 North Mopac Expressway
`Suite 350
`
`Austin, TX 78731
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`
`Reg. No. 40,673
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`ATTN: Heidi L. Keefe
`
`Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite700
`7777777777 Washington, DC 20004
`e
`,
`~
`Tel (650) 8435001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400
`
`1157600 vl/HN
`
`