`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 15
`Entered: May 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00029 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00029 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`On May 12, 2014, Patent Owner, B.E. Technology, LLC (hereinafter “Patent
`Owner” or “B.E. Technology”), filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`Robert E. Freitas. Paper 13. The motion is unopposed.1 For the reasons provided
`below, B.E. Technology’s motion is 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 be a registered practitioner. In authorizing motions for pro hac
`vice admission, 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.
`Paper 3, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition, 2 (incorporating requirements
`in the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-
`00010).
`In the above-identified proceeding, lead counsel for B.E. Technology, Mr.
`Jason Angell, is a registered practitioner. B.E. Technology’s motion indicates that
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Freitas pro hac vice during this
`proceeding, and is supported by the declaration of Mr. Freitas. Paper 13.
`In particular, Mr. Freitas declares that he is an experienced litigation
`attorney and has served as counsel in numerous patent infringement cases in
`various district courts and the International Trade Commission. Declaration, ¶ 9.2
`
`
`1 Petitioner, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., did not file an opposition
`within one week from the filing of B.E. Technology’s motion.
`2 The Declaration should have been filed as an exhibit and not as a motion
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00029 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`Mr. Freitas is also counsel for B.E. Technology in a co-pending litigation, B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
`02827, which involves U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290. Id., ¶ 10.
`Further, Mr. Freitas has reviewed and is familiar with the asserted patent,
`prior art references, claim construction issues, and invalidity contentions in the co-
`pending litigation. The motion and declaration comply with the requirements set
`forth in the Notice, as well as the updated requirements set forth in the Board’s
`order authorizing pro hac vice admission.
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Freitas
`possesses sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in
`this proceeding, and the Board recognizes that there is a need for Patent Owner to
`have related litigation counsel involved. Accordingly, Patent Owner has
`established good cause for Mr. Freitas’s admission. Mr. Freitas 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 motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`Robert E. Freitas for this proceeding is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Freitas is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent Patent Owner as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`
`attachment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00029 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Freitas 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 to be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct3 set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`3 Mr. Freitas incorrectly refers to this title as the “USPTO Code of Professional
`Responsibility.” Declaration, ¶ 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00029 (Patent 6,771,290 B1)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`John Flock
`Paul Qualey
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`jflock@kenyon.com
`pqualey@kenyon.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`
`
`5