`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 17
`
`Date Entered: July 1, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`TWITTER, INC. and YELP INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00086
`Case IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`____________
`
`
`
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`ROBERT D. TADLOCK
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086; IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`In IPR2014-00812, Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. moved for the pro hac vice
`
`admission of attorney Robert D. Tadlock in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10.
`
`IPR2014-00812, Papers 7, 9, 11 (“Motion”). Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC does
`
`not oppose the Motion. On June 25, 2014, we joined IPR2014-000812 to
`
`IPR2013-00086. See, IPR2014-00812, Paper 13 and IPR2014-00086, Paper
`
`16.We grant the Motion in the joined proceeding.
`
`I. Discussion
`
`As set forth in 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. For example, where the
`
`lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is 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. (See, Paper 7, “Order –
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-00639, entered
`
`October 15, 2013).
`
`Robert D. Tadlock provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California;
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086; IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by
`
`any court or administrative body;
`
`v. has 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.;
`
`vi. 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. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii.
`
`in the last three years has applied to appear pro hac vice only in
`
`IPR2014-00092, which motion was granted; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Lead counsel in IPR2014-00812 for Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc., Vaibhav P.
`
`Kadaba, who is registered to practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of
`
`facts that Mr. Tadlock is an experienced litigating attorney and, as counsel in
`
`concurrent litigation involving the patent that is the subject of this proceeding, Mr.
`
`Tadlock is familiar with the prior art to be addressed in this proceeding. Thus,
`
`Twitter, Inc. and Yelp Inc. have shown good cause why Robert D. Tadlock should
`
`be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Tadlock has
`
`provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. Therefore, Robert D. Tadlock has
`
`complied with the requirements for admission pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Robert D.
`
`Tadlock is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Robert D. Tadlock may not act as lead counsel
`
`in the proceeding;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00086; IPR2014-00812
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout the proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Robert D. Tadlock 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 the C.F.R.; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Robert D. Tadlock is 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., which took
`
`effect on May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey Kushan
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Anthony Patek
`pto@gutridesafier.com
`
`Todd Kennedy
`todd@guttridesafier.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`