UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`BE. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00031
`
`Patent 6,771,290
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESI-IPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`B.E. Technology’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jessica N. Leal
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`BE. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00031
`
`Patent 6,771,290
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESI-IPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`B.E. Technology’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jessica N. Leal
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to recognize Jessica N. Leal as
`
`counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.1 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 and in
`
`response to the authorization provided by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded t0 Petition (Paper Number 3, entered October 11, 2013) (“Notice”),
`
`Patent Owner B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“Patent Owner”) submits this motion for
`
`Ms. Leal to appear pro hac vice.
`
`I.
`
`Timefor Filing
`
`Pursuant to the “Order — Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”
`
`in Case IPR2013-006392 (“Order”), this motion for pro hac vice admission is being
`
`filed no sooner than twenty-one (21) days after service of the petition.
`
`11.
`
`Good Cause for Additional Back— Up Counsel
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests admission of Ms. Leal as additional
`
`back—up counsel3 to promote attorney availability for the discovery period and trial.
`
`1 Corresponding motions for Pro Hac Vice admission are being concurrently filed in co-pending
`cases IPR2014-00029, IPR2014-00033, IPR2014-0003 8, IPR2014-00039, IPR2014-00040,
`IPR2014-00044, IPR2014-00052, IPR2014-00053, IPR2014-00698, and IPR2014-00699.
`
`2 Patent Owner notes that while the Notice references the “Order — Authorizing Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT), the Order in Case IPR2013-00639 states
`that the Final Rule regarding Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office removes part 10 of title 37, C.F.R. referred to in the Order in Case
`IPR2013-00010 (MPT). Accordingly, for purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner will refer to
`the Order in Case IPR2013-00639.
`
`3 Patent Owner is concurrently filing corresponding motions for Pro Hac Vice admission for
`Daniel J. Weinberg as additional back-up counsel.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has a sufficient need for the admission of additional back-up
`
`counsel. The Board has instituted nine separate inter partes review (“IPR”) trials
`
`against two B.E. Technology, L.L.C. patents. Five more IPR petitions have been
`
`filed with motions for joinder, bringing the total to fourteen IPRs. Patent Owner
`
`has to conduct discovery, including deposing five experts, three of whom have
`
`offered opinions on both patents. In order to efficiently and effectively cover the
`
`ground necessary in these IPRS, Patent Owner seeks the pro hac vice admission of
`
`additional back-up counsel. This request is accompanied by the attached Power of
`
`Attorney.
`
`III.
`
`Statement ofFacts
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the following statement of facts, supported by the
`
`attached Declaration of Ms. Leal, shows that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Ms. Leal pro hac vice.
`
`Lead counsel for this proceeding, Jason S. Angell, is a registered practitioner
`
`(Reg. No. 51408).
`
`Ms. Leal is an experienced litigation attorney, and has served as counsel in
`
`numerous complex litigations and patent infringement cases in various district
`
`courts. Ms. Leal has not been suspended or disbarred from practice, and she has
`
`not had any application for admission to practice denied, or had any sanctions or
`
`contempt citations imposed against her. Ms. Leal is an active member in good
`
`
`
`standing of the California Bar and is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court
`
`of the United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the US. District Court for the Northern
`
`District of California, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`California, and the US. District Court for the Central District of California. Her
`
`mailing address is Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, 350 Marine Parkway, Suite
`
`200, Redwood Shores, California 94065, her email address is jleal@fawlaw.com,
`
`and her direct dial telephone number is (650) 73 0-5508.
`
`Ms. Leal is a member of the trial team for Patent Owner in BE. Technology,
`
`LL. C. v. Google Inc., No. 2: 12-cv-02830, co-pending litigation in the United
`
`States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. That litigation
`
`involves US. Patent No. 6,771,290 (“’290 Patent”), the patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding. In her role as counsel in the co-pending litigation, Ms. Leal is
`
`knowledgeable about the ’290 Patent, and assertions regarding the invalidity of the
`
`’290 patent. Further, Ms. Leal is familiar with the factual and legal matters at issue
`
`in that case, including the claim construction issues likely to be presented in the co-
`
`pending litigation. Ms. Leal has thus established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Ms. Leal has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the
`
`
`
`C.F.R., and she agrees to be subject to the USPTO 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). Ms. Leal has not applied pro hac vice in any other proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the last three years, other than in
`
`co-pending inter partes review proceedings involving B.E. Technology patents.
`
`Patent Owner has expended significant resources in the co-pending litigation
`
`with Ms. Leal as counsel, and Patent Owner wishes Ms. Leal to represent it in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`IV. Affidavit or Declaration ofIndividual Seeking to Appear
`
`This motion for pro hac vice admission is accompanied by a Declaration of
`
`Ms. Leal as required by the Order.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Declaration of Ms. Leal, establish that there is good cause to admit Ms. Leal pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`Date: May 29, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JESSICA N. LEAL IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 1.68, 1, Jessica N. Leal, hereby attest to the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`My mailing address is Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, 350 Marine
`
`Parkway, Suite 200, Redwood Shores, California 94065, my email address is
`
`jleal@fawlaw.com, and my telephone number is (650) 730-5 508.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the California Bar (admitted in
`
`2009), as well as the following federal courts:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`(1.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Supreme Court of the US;
`
`US. Court of Federal Claims;
`
`US. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;
`
`US. District Court for the Northern District of California;
`
`US. District Court for the Central District of California; and
`
`US. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
`
`3.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body;
`
`4.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied;
`
`5.
`
`I have never had sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court
`
`
`
`or administrative body against me;
`
`6.
`
`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 37 C.F.R.;
`
`7.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`1 1.19(a);
`
`8.
`
`I have not applied to appear pro hac vice before the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office in any other proceeding in the last three years; and
`
`9.
`
`I graduated from law school in 2009 and I have been engaged full
`
`time in private law practice since December 2009.
`
`I am an experienced litigation
`
`attorney and have served as counsel in numerous complex litigations and patent
`
`infringement cases in various district courts.
`
`10.
`
`I am a member of the trial team for counsel for Patent Owner in a co-
`
`pending litigation (BE. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc, No. 2: l2-cv—02830) in
`
`which US. Patent No. 6,771,290 is asserted against Petitioner.
`
`I have reviewed
`
`and am familiar with the patent and assertions regarding the invalidity of the
`
`patent. Accordingly, I am familiar with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
`
`America that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`
`
`Executed on May 28, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`BE. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2014-00031
`
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and LYNNE E.
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Patent Owner, B.E. Technology, L.L.C.,
`
`hereby appoints the following as its additional back—up counsel to transact all
`
`business in the United States Patent & Trademark Office associated with the
`
`above-captioned inter partes review:
`
`Additional Back-Up Counsel
`
`Jessica N. Leal (pro hac vice motion)
`‘leal
`fawlaw.c0m
`
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`
`350 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650)593-6300
`Facsimile: (650)593-6301
`
`The individual signing below as the authority to execute this document on
`
`behalf of B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that copies of BB. Technology’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Jessica N. Leal Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 and the Declaration of
`
`Jessica N. Leal In Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission have been
`
`served on Petitioner as provided in 37 CPR. § 42.6(e) Via electronic mail
`
`transmission addressed to the persons at the address below:
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal
`
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`cbrannon@mayerbrown.com
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`WDC-Client—IPR—Filings@mayerbrown.com
`
`Date: May 29, 2014
`
`By: /s/Jas0n S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
