UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`
`Patent No. 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`PRO HAC VICE OF JARED BOBROW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.10
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01209
`
`Patent No. 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`PRO HAC VICE OF JARED BOBROW
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice – Jared Bobrow
`Case IPR2014-01209
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10, Petitioners ORACLE CORPORATION,
`
`NETAPP INC., and HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., request that the
`
`Board admit Jared Bobrow pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`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 and to any
`other conditions as the Board may impose. For example,
`where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a
`motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who is not a
`registered practitioner may be granted 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). The facts, supported by the Declaration of Jared Bobrow in
`Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Bobrow Decl.”, Exhibit 1233),
`establish good cause to admit Mr. Bobrow pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`1. Lead counsel Greg Gardella is a registered practitioner and is
`experienced in inter partes proceedings in the USPTO.
`
`2. Backup counsel Scott A. McKeown is a registered practitioner and
`is experienced in inter partes proceedings in the USPTO.
`
`3. Jared Bobrow is an experienced litigation attorney. Mr. Bobrow
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice – Jared Bobrow
`Case IPR2014-01209
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`
`has been a litigating attorney for more than 27 years. Bobrow Decl. ¶ 1. Mr.
`Bobrow has been litigating patent cases for approximately 25 of those years. Id.
`¶ 1. Mr. Bobrow is a member in good standing of the California State Bar, with no
`suspensions or disbarments from practice, nor any application for admission to
`practice denied, nor any sanctions or contempt citations, and is admitted to
`practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United
`States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals
`for the First Circuit; California State Supreme Court; the United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas; and the United States District Courts
`for the Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern Districts of California. Id. ¶¶ 1-4.
`
`4. Mr. Bobrow has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`this proceeding based on his work as counsel in the pending district court case
`Crossroads Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., W.D. Tex. Case No. 13-895-SS, in
`which U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 is and was asserted by the Patent Owner. (Id. ¶
`9. Mr. Bobrow has been actively involved in all aspects of the pending district
`court case, including the issue of validity of the patents-in-suit. Id.
`
`5. Mr. Bobrow 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 Code of Professional
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§10.20 et seq., and to disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §11.19(a). Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`6. Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc. has indicated that this
`Motion is not opposed.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice – Jared Bobrow
`Case IPR2014-01209
`U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147
`
`
`I I I .
`
`
`A N A L Y S I S
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Bobrow Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr. Bobrow pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. §42.10. Lead counsel are registered
`
`practitioners, Mr. Bobrow is an experienced litigation attorney, and Mr. Bobrow
`
`has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`admit Jared Bobrow pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier &
`Neustadt, LLP
`
`
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045)
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`Scott A. McKeown (Reg. No. 42,866)
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioners
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: September 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO
`
`HAC VICE OF JARED BOBROW PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.10, Exhibit
`
`1233 and Exhibit 1234 were served on September 8, 2015, on the counsel of
`
`record for the Patent Owner by filing this document through the Patent Review
`
`Processing System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to the following
`
`addresses:
`
`Steven Sprinkle
`John Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James H. Hall
`BLANK ROME LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@blankrome.com
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Greg H. Gardella/
`Greg H. Gardella (Reg. No. 46,045)
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
