Attorney Docket No. FABO—O24/01US
`(309101-2061)
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., LINKEDIN CORP., and TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`1169734 V1/HN
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/0lUS
`(309101-2061)
`
`A
`
`Case No. IPR20l3-00480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`Petitioner Facebook, Inc. respectfully requests that the Board recognize
`
`Mark R. Weinstein, Esq., as counsel pro hacivice during this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed in compliance
`
`with and pursuant to the “Order——Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” in Case No. IPR20l3—O00l0 (MPT) [“the Order”].
`
`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. Weinstein pro hac vice.
`
`Mr. Weinstein is an experienced litigation attorney and has been involved in
`
`numerous complex litigations in state and federal courts. Mr. Weinstein’s
`
`biography is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Mr. Weinstein has reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,832,494, and the petition
`
`already filed in this proceeding. Further,lMr. Weinstein is counsel of record in the
`
`co-pending litigation between the parties, Software Rights Archive LLC v.
`
`Facebook, Inc., No. 5:12—cv-03970 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2012); Software Rights
`
`Archive LLC v. Linkedln Corp, No. 5:12-cv-03971 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2012);
`
`Software Rights Archive LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 5:12-cv—03972 RMW (N.D. Cal.
`
`2012); and, as such, is familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`1169734 vl/HN
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO—024/0lUS
`(309101-2061)
`
`Case No. lPR2013—00480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`Therefore, Petitioner respectfully submits that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Weinstein as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`III.
`
`AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEEKING T0
`APPEAR
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is accompanied by an
`
`Affidavit of Mark R. Weinstein as required by the Order.
`
`DATED: November 13, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Heidi Kee[e/
`. 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
`
`1169734 V1/HN
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AEXHIBIT A
`
`

`
`
`
`PRACTICES:
`Intellectual Property
`Intellectual Property Litigation
`Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
`
`
`
`MARK WEINSTEIN
`PARTNER
`
`OFFICE:
`Palo Alto—Hanover Campus
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California
`94304
`
`T: +1 650 843 5007
`F: +1 650 849 7400
`E: mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark Weinstein is a partner in the Cooley Litigation department and member of the Intellectual Property
`practice group. He joined the Firm in 2009 and is resident in the Palo Alto office.
`
`Mr. Weinstein's practice focuses on patent and other complex technology-related disputes. He has handled
`a number of high-stakes litigations throughout the United States involving a variety of technologies,
`including computer software and hardware, Internet applications, electronic transactions, e-commerce,
`computer networking, entertainment software, and medical devices.
`
`Representative cases include:
`
`Patents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. Mark has represented and is representing Facebook in more than a dozen patent
`infringement actions, including Yahoo! Inc v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Leader Technologies,
`Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Del.), Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Mass.), Mekiki Co.,
`Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Del.), Cross-Atlantic Capital Partners, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Pa.),
`Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Tex.), Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook,
`Inc. (D. Del.), and several others.
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America. Mark has defended and is currently defending HTC in
`several patent litigations including HTC v. Technology Properties Ltd. (N.D. Cal.), Digitude
`Innovations LLC v. HTC (D. Del. and U.S. ITC), ADC Technology, Inc. v. HTC et al. (N.D. Ill.),
`Microunity Systems Eng'g v. HTC et al. (E.D. Tex.) and BandSpeed, Inc. v. HTC Corp. et al.
`(W.D. Tex), SP Technologies, Ltd. v. HTC et al. (N.D. Ill.), Implicit Networks, Inc. v. HTC (N.D.
`Cal.), and several others.
`
`LinkedIn Corporation. Mark is representing LinkedIn in Jaipuria v. LinkedIn Corp. et al. (E.D.
`Tex.) and Cathas Advanced Technologies LLC v. LinkedIn Corp. (D. Del.)
`
`EMC Corporation. In Hewlett-Packard Company et al. v. EMC Corporation (N.D. Cal.), Mr.
`Weinstein represented EMC in a patent infringement suit involving thirteen patents relating to
`mass data storage systems, servers and printers. HP initiated the lawsuit by suing EMC for
`alleged infringement of seven patents. EMC counterclaimed against HP with six of its own
`patents. Following claim construction proceedings and motion practice, the case settled with HP
`agreeing to pay EMC more than $325 million, one of the largest patent settlements on record.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In-Three, Inc. In IMAX Corporation v. In-Three, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein defended In-Three
`in a patent infringement suit involving software for producing three dimensional motion
`pictures. In-Three defeated a motion for preliminary injunction filed by IMAX that threatened to
`shut down In-Three's operations.
`
`
`eBay Inc. In Tumbleweed Communications Corp. v. eBay, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein
`defended eBay and its subsidiary PayPal against allegations of infringement of three software
`patents related to electronic financial transactions. The case settled on favorable terms during the
`pendency of a summary judgment motion filed by eBay and PayPal that sought to invalidate
`Tumbleweed's patents in light of the prior art.
`
`Trade Secrets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cirrus Logic, Inc. In Silvaco Data Systems v. Cirrus Logic, Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Mark
`represented Cirrus Logic in a trade secret lawsuit involving Electronic Design Automation
`technology. Cirrus Logic obtained summary judgment that it did not misappropriate any of the
`plaintiff's trade secrets, which was affirmed on appeal.
`
`
`Alstom ESCA Corporation. In ABB Power T&D Company v. Alstom ESCA Corporation et al.
`(N.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein was a member of a team representing Alstom in a six week federal jury
`trial involving claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract
`and a variety of business torts, which resulted in a unanimous verdict exonerating the client from
`liability. The technologies in the case related to hardware and software systems for the electric
`power industry.
`
`
`Advanced Modular Sputtering (AMS). In Sputtered Films, Inc. v. Advanced Modular Sputtering,
`Inc. et al. (Santa Barbara Sup. Ct.), Mr. Weinstein represented AMS in a trade secret case
`involving PVD sputtering technologies. The case generated an oft-cited decision clarifying
`California's statute requiring plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets, Advanced Modular Sputtering
`v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2005).
`
`
` Minerva Networks, Inc. In Myrio, Inc. v. Minerva Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Mark defended
`Minerva against trade secret, unfair competition and false advertising claims involving
`technologies for delivering television and multimedia services over broadband networks. The
`case settled favorably after the court ruled that Myrio had failed to adequately identify its trade
`secrets.
`
`Technology/IP Licensing
`
`
`
`DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA). In RealNetworks, Inc., et al. v. DVD Copy Control
`Association, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
`(Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Mark represented the DVD CCA in two separate actions alleging breach
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`of the technology license that covers use of the Content Scramble System (CSS) technology that
`is used to prevent copying of motion picture DVDs. DVD CCA obtained an injunction from the
`trial courts in both actions prohibiting sales of products that did not comply with the license. The
`Kaleidescape action is currently on appeal.
`
` Marshal Software. Mark represented Marshal, a leading producer of Internet security and anti-
`spam software, in three trademark and unfair competition lawsuits against competing companies.
`All three cases resulted in the defendants agreeing to rebrand their products to avoid any use of
`Marshal's trademarks.
`
`Mr. Weinstein is a frequent lecturer on all aspects of intellectual property protection and has taught classes
`at Santa Clara University School of Law. Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Weinstein was a partner at a large
`international law firm and served as the managing partner in charge of that firm's Silicon Valley office. He is
`also a former law clerk for the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, United States District Court for
`the Southern District of California.
`
`Education
`
`
`
`
`
`University of San Diego School of Law
`JD, 1997
`
`University of California, San Diego
`BS, 1992
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`
`
`California
`
`Court Admissions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court, Central District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/0lUS
`(309l0l—206l)
`
`Case No. lPR20l3—0O480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MARK R. WEINSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Mark R. Weinstein, 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
`
`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, U.S. District Court for the Eastern p(‚n istrict of Texas, Federal Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals, and Ninth 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 part 42 of the C.F.R.
`
`1169734 vl/HN
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. FABO-024/0lUS
`(309101-2061)
`
`Case No. lPR20l3-00480 (SM)
`Patent No. 5,832,494
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 1020, et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § ll.l9(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have applied simultaneously with this application to appear pro hac
`
`vice in lPR20l3—00478, IPR20l3-00479, and IPR2013-481. l 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 courts.
`
`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.
`
`I have also reviewed the pertinent issues of
`
`claim construction that have been briefed in this proceeding.
`
`779% Z ZV.....;..
`
`Mark, R. Weinstein
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`Five Palo Alto Square
`3000 El Camino Real
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2150
`T: 650-843-5007
`
`F: 650-849-7400
`
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`1169734 vl/HN
`
`

`
`CALIFORNIA U AT WITH AFFIANT S
`
`
`
`y N . ~- Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)
`lfl See Statement Below (Lines 1-5 to be completed only by document signer[s], not Notary)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature of Document Signer No. 1
`
`Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any)
`
`State of California
`
`County of ;n nnn
`
`Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this
`
`Date
`
`, 20 /3 , by
`/1’//Q3;/f§,§’3fr;,;"‘ ~ r’
`géiflday of
`Month
`]nn .5 `knn ""3ii'E:r'/\«f
`(1)
`Name of Signer
`
`Year
`
`
`
`PATRKIM was RUSSELL
`commission 4! 1989595
`floaty Public - California
`1 santa cruz county
`lies 59? 24- W5
`
`(2)
`
`proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
`to be the person who appeared before me (.) (,)
`
`(and
`
`Name of Signer
`
`’
`
`proved to me 1
`‘ M
`tory evidence
`I
`to be the pegs?) who a
`
` n f. n.nn nj —
`
`V I
`Signature of Notary Public
`
`Signatur
`
`Place Notary Seal Above
`
`
`OP TIONA L
`
`
`
`it may prove
`Though the information below ls not required by law,
`valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
`fraudulent removal and reattachrneht of this form so another document.
`
`Further Description of Any Attached Document
`
``5n 56n
`Title orType of Document:/¢$ _
`Document Date: 3n nD5n 35 ‘If PA5n
`Number of Pages: Q‘
`
`Slgneds) Other Than Named Above:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..
`.0. Box 402-Chatsw<>rth,"CA 91313—2402-www.NationalNoiary.org Item #5910 7Reordert CaIlTolI—Free 1.-8
`
`
`
`RlGHTTHUMBPRlM'
`OF SIGNER #1
`
`
`Top of thumb here
`
`RIGHT THUMBPRINT
`OF SIGNER #2
`
`Top of thumb here
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`the attached PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION,
`including all exhibits and related documents, is being served via Federal Express
`on the 13th day of November, 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*“ Street, N.W., Suite 800
`Washington D.C. 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— l 2-3970—LB:
`
`W. Paul Schuck
`Thomas Whitelaw LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4037
`
`Victor G. Hardy
`Chester J. Shiu
`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, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (650) 843-5001
`Fax: (650) 849-7400 _
`
`1177058 vl/HN