`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 9
`
`Date Entered: December 13, 2013
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWITTER, INC. AND YELP, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00092
`Patent 7,010,536
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, BRIAN J. McNAMARA and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`ROBERT D. TADLOCK
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00092
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`Twitter, Inc. and Yelp, Inc. (Petitioners) move for the pro hac vice
`
`admission of attorney ROBERT D. TADLOCK in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10.
`
`(Motion, Paper No. 4, filed November 1, 2011). Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC
`
`(Patent Owner) does not oppose the Motion. We grant the Motion.
`
`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 ROBERT
`
`D. TADLOCK:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of California;
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`has never denied any application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by
`
`any court or administrative body;
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00092
`Patent 7,010,536
`
`
`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. §§ 10.20 et. seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii.
`
`has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other proceeding before
`
`the Office last three (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioner, Vaibhav P. Kadaba, who is a registered to
`
`practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. Tadlock is an
`
`experienced litigator who is familiar with the subject matter of this proceeding.
`
`Thus, Petitioner has shown good cause why ROBERT D. TADLOCK should be
`
`recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding. ROBERT D. TADLOCK
`
`has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. We note that Mr. Tadlock’s
`
`affidavit cites to 37 C.F.R. §§10.20 et seq., which has been superseded by the
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. Mr. Tadlock is
`
`reminded to review and become familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct
`
`currently in effect. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that 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 IPR2014-00092
`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 become familiar
`
`with and 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: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Robert D. Tadlock
`rtadlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Anthony J. Patek
`Gutride Safier LLP
`anthony@gutridesafier.com
`pto@gutridesafier.com
`
`
`Seth Safer
`Gutride Safier LLP
`seth@gutridesafier.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`