`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00033
`Patent 6,771,290
`___________
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`B.E. Technology’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert E. Freitas
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to recognize Robert E. Freitas
`
`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 to Petition (Paper Number 4, entered October 8, 2013)
`
`(“Notice”), Patent Owner B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`motion for Mr. Freitas to appear pro hac vice.
`
`I.
`
`Time for 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.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`Pursuant to the Order, the following statement of facts, supported by the
`
`attached Declaration of Mr. Freitas, shows that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Freitas pro hac vice.
`
`
`1 Corresponding motions for Pro Hac Vice admission are being concurrently filed in co-pending
`cases IPR2014-00029, IPR2014-00031, IPR2014-00038, IPR2014-00039, IPR2014-00040,
`IPR2014-00044, IPR2014-00052, and IPR2014-00053.
`
` 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.
`
` 2
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`Lead counsel for this proceeding, Jason S. Angell, is a registered practitioner
`
`(Reg. No. 51408).
`
`Mr. Freitas is an experienced litigation attorney, and has served as counsel in
`
`numerous patent infringement cases in various district courts and the International
`
`Trade Commission. Mr. Freitas has not been suspended or disbarred from practice,
`
`and he has not had any application for admission to practice denied, or had any
`
`sanctions or contempt citations imposed against him. Mr. Freitas 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 Courts of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Tenth Circuit, various United
`
`States district courts and the United States Court of Federal Claims. His mailing
`
`address is Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, 350 Marine Parkway, Suite 200,
`
`Redwood Shores, California 94065, his email address is rfreitas@fawlaw.com, and
`
`his direct dial telephone number is (650) 730-5527.
`
`Mr. Freitas is lead counsel for Patent Owner in B.E. Technology, L.L.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 U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,771,290 (“’290 Patent”), the patent at issue in this proceeding. In his role as
`
`counsel in the co-pending litigation, Mr. Freitas has reviewed and is familiar with
`
`the ’290 Patent, the asserted prior art references, and the invalidity claim charts.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, Mr. Freitas 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. Mr. Freitas has thus established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Freitas 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 he 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). Mr. Freitas has not applied pro hac vice in any other proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the last three years.
`
`Patent Owner has expended significant resources in the co-pending litigation
`
`with Mr. Freitas as lead counsel, and Patent Owner wishes Mr. Freitas to represent
`
`it in this proceeding.
`
`III. Affidavit or Declaration of Individual Seeking to Appear
`
`This motion for pro hac vice admission is accompanied by a Declaration of
`
`Mr. Freitas as required by the Order.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Declaration of Mr. Freitas, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr. Freitas
`
`pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT E. FREITAS IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.68, I, Robert E. Freitas, 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
`
`rfreitas@fawlaw.com, and my telephone number is (650) 730-5527.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the California Bar (admitted in
`
`1978), as well as the following federal courts:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`California Supreme Court
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
`
`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 Eastern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court of the District of Colorado
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`l.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee;
`
`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 Code of Professional Responsibility
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(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 1977. I spent one year as a law clerk
`
`to Justice Ralph M. Holman of the Oregon Supreme Court, and I have been
`
`engaged full time in private law practice since October 1978. I am an experienced
`
`litigation attorney and have served as counsel in numerous patent infringement
`
`cases in various district courts and the International Trade Commission.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`I am lead counsel for Patent Owner in a co-pending litigation (B.E.
`
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02830) in which U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,771,290 is asserted against Petitioner. I have reviewed and am familiar with the
`
`asserted patent, prior art references, claim construction issues, and invalidity
`
`contentions in the co-pending litigation. 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 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Robert E. Freitas
`Robert E. Freitas
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is certified that copies of B.E. Technology’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Robert E. Freitas Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 and the Declaration
`
`of Robert E. Freitas In Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission have been
`
`served on Petitioner as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 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
`
`Date: May 12, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jason S. Angell
`Jason S. Angell
`Reg. No. 51408
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`-9-
`
`
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
