`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`GOOGLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SAMUEL BRYANT DAVIDOFF
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Board’s “Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition” (Paper 3, dated December 5, 2014) (“Notice of Filing
`
`Date”), Petitioner Google Inc. (“Google”) respectfully requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Samuel Bryant Davidoff in this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which provides that:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`The Notice of Filing Date requires that any motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission be filed in accordance with the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR 2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Unified Patents Order”).
`
`(See Notice of Filing Date at 3.)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`The Unified Patents Order requires that a pro hac vice motion “[c]ontain a
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding.” Unified Patents Order at 3. A motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission should also be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of
`
`the individual seeking to appear attesting to the following:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`the District of Columbia;
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court
`or administrative body;
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`administrative body ever denied;
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`administrative body;
`The individual seeking to appear 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.;
`The individual 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. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years;
`and
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`Unified Patents Order at 3.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Declaration of Mr.
`
`Davidoff submitted herewith as Exhibit 1034, Google requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Samuel Bryant Davidoff in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Google’s lead counsel, Andrew V. Trask, is a registered practitioner
`
`(Reg. No. 59,239).
`
`2. Mr. Davidoff is an experienced litigating attorney. Mr. Davidoff has
`
`been practicing patent litigation among other types of complex civil
`
`litigation for approximately eight years. Ex. 1034 ¶ 1.
`
`3. Mr. Davidoff has established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. As detailed below, Mr. Davidoff is and has
`
`been litigation counsel to Google in related proceedings in which the
`
`identical claims of the ’295 patent are at issue. Id. ¶ 10.
`
`4. Mr. Davidoff is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of
`
`New York and the District of Columbia. Id. ¶ 3.
`
`5. Mr. Davidoff has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied Mr. Davidoff’s
`
`application for admission to practice before it. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`7.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or
`
`contempt citations on Mr. Davidoff. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`8. Mr. Davidoff 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. Id. ¶ 7.
`
`9. Mr. Davidoff understands that he 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). Id. ¶ 8.
`
`10. Mr. Davidoff has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any
`
`proceedings before this Office in the last three (3) years. Id. ¶ 9.
`
`11. Counsel for Google conferred with lead counsel for TLI
`
`Communications LLC (“TLI”) before filing this motion, and TLI
`
`indicated that it does not oppose this motion or the admission of Mr.
`
`Davidoff on a pro hac basis for this matter.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. DAVIDOFF IN THIS PROCEEDING
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`practitioner and to any other conditions as the Board may impose. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c). Google’s lead counsel, Andrew V. Trask, is a registered practitioner
`
`before the Board. Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr.
`
`Davidoff’s declaration, good cause exists to admit Mr. Davidoff pro hac vice in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`As set forth in his declaration, Mr. Davidoff is an experienced litigator with
`
`approximately eight years of patent litigation experience. Ex. 1034 ¶ 1. Moreover,
`
`Mr. Davidoff has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding. He represented Google in the district court litigations of TLI
`
`Communications LLC v. Google Inc., 1:13-cv-01924-GMS (D. Del.) and TLI
`
`Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, L.L.C., 1:14-cv-00139 (E.D. Va.), the
`
`latter of which was consolidated into In re TLI Communications LLC, No.
`
`1:14md2534 (E.D. Va.). Mr. Davidoff also represents Google in the appeal of the
`
`judgment entered in the consolidated case, pending as TLI Communications LLC v.
`
`AV Automotive, L.L.C., No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir.). Each of those cases involved or
`
`involves the identical claims of the ’295 patent at issue here. Ex. 1034 ¶ 10.
`
`Mr. Davidoff thus has extensive experience not only with patent litigation,
`
`but also with litigating the precise subject matter raised in Petitioner’s inter partes
`
`review petition. Moreover, admission of Mr. Davidoff pro hac vice will avoid
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`unnecessary expense and duplication of work for Google between this and the
`
`earlier-filed parallel proceedings identified above. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48612, 48661
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Office’s comment on final rule discussing concerns about
`
`efficiency and costs where a patent owner has already engaged counsel for parallel
`
`litigation). As counsel for Google, Mr. Davidoff has been actively involved in all
`
`aspects of its related federal court litigation, including factual investigation and
`
`development concerning the claims of the ’295 patent being challenged in this
`
`proceeding. In view of Mr. Davidoff’s extensive knowledge of the precise subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this
`
`proceeding and its federal court litigations, Google has a substantial need for Mr.
`
`Davidoff’s pro hac vice admission and his involvement in the continued
`
`prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests that Mr. Davidoff be
`
`admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Andrew V. Trask
`Andrew V. Trask
`Reg. No. 59,239
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`725 Twelfth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 434-5098
`Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
`Email: atrask@wc.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00283
`Patent 6,038,295
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned Google Inc.’s
`
`
`
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Samuel Bryant Davidoff
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), along with Exhibit 1034, was served on February
`
`27, 2015, by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as
`
`well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record
`
`for the Petitioner:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Michael A. Davitz
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 550
`San Jose, CA 95113
`patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Andrew V. Trask
`Andrew V. Trask
`Reg. No. 59,239
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Phone: 202-434-5098
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`
`
`
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
