`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 27
`
`Entered: June 17, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK INC.
`MATCH.COM LLC, and PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-000531
`Patent 6,628,314 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
`
`On May 29, 2014, Patent Owner, B.E. Technology, LLC (hereinafter “Patent
`
`Owner” or “B.E. Technology”), filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2014-00698 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`Daniel J. Weinberg and Ms. Jessica N. Leal. The motions are unopposed.2 For the
`
`reasons provided below, B.E. Technology’s motions are granted.3
`
`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 4, 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 motions indicate that
`
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Weinberg and Ms. Leal pro hac
`
`vice during this proceeding, and are supported by the declarations of Mr. Weinberg
`
`and Ms. Leal.
`
`In particular, Mr. Weinberg and Ms. Leal each declare that they are
`
`experienced litigation attorneys and have served as counsel in numerous patent
`
`
`
`2 Petitioner did not file an opposition within one week from the filing of B.E.
`Technology’s motions.
`3 Patent Owner filed similar motions in IPR2014-00698, which as stated above, has
`been joined with IPR2014-00053. Accordingly, the motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Weinberg and Ms. Leal filed in IPR2014-00698 are dismissed as
`moot.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`infringement cases in various district courts. Declarations.4 Mr. Weinberg and
`
`Ms. Leal are also counsel for B.E. Technology in at least co-pending litigation,
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02830, which involves
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314.
`
`Further, Mr. Weinberg and Ms. Leal have each reviewed and are familiar
`
`with the asserted patent, prior art references, claim construction issues, and
`
`invalidity contentions in the co-pending litigation. The motions and declarations
`
`comply with the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Weinberg and
`
`Ms. Neal possess 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. Weinberg’s and Ms. Leal’s admission. Mr.
`
`Weinberg and Ms. Leal 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 motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Daniel J. Weinberg and Ms. Jessica N. Leal are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Daniel J. Weinberg and Ms. Jessica N. Leal
`
`are 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
`
`
`
`4 The Declarations should have been filed as exhibits and not as a motion
`attachment. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Daniel J. Weinberg and Ms. Jessica N. Leal
`
`are 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 Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`11.101 et seq.
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case IPR2014-00053
`Patent 6,628,314 B1
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Orion Armon
`COOLEY, LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`oarmon@cooley.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Freitas Tseng & Kaufman LLP
`jangell@ftklaw.com