`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`
`Date Entered: March 17, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00093
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
` MARK R. WEINSTEIN
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00093
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Petitioner”) moves for the pro hac vice admission of
`
`attorney Mark R. Weinstein in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10. Paper 8.
`
`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).
`
`Mark R. Weinstein provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`
`i.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`
`the District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`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;
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by
`
`any court or administrative body;
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00093
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`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.
`
`has listed all other proceedings before the Office for which QQQ has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioner, Heidi Keefe, who is a registered to practice at
`
`the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. Weinstein is an experienced
`
`litigation attorney, is familiar with the subject matter of this proceeding, and is
`
`counsel of record in co-pending litigation between the parties in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California. Thus, Petitioner has shown good
`
`cause why Mr. Weinstein should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Mr.Weinstein has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration.
`
`Therefore, Mark R. Weinstein 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 Mark R.
`
`Weinstein is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mark R. Weinstein may not act as lead counsel
`
`in the proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout the proceeding; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00093
`Patent 7,010,536 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mark R. Weinstein 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 Mark R. Weinstein 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.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Anthony J. Patek
`anthony@gutridesafier.com
`
`Seth Safier
`seth@gutridesafier.com
`GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`
`
`
`4