`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: July 28, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00343 (Patent 8,640,179 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00345 (Patent 8,205,237 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00347 (Patent 8,010,988 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00348 (Patent 8,656,441 B1)1
`____________
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Greg Dovel
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 We use this caption in this paper to indicate that this Order applies to, and
`is entered in, all four cases. The parties are not authorized to use this
`caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00343 (Patent 8,640,179 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00345 (Patent 8,205,237 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00347 (Patent 8,010,988 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00348 (Patent 8,656,441 B1)
`
`Patent Owner, Network-1 Technologies, Inc., filed a motion for pro
`hac vice admission of Mr. Greg Dovel. Paper 10.2 Patent Owner also filed a
`declaration from Mr. Dovel in support of its motion. Ex. 2004. Petitioner,
`Google, Inc., indicated in the initial conference call for these proceedings
`that it does not oppose the motion. See Paper 13, 2.
`Having reviewed the Motion and the declaration of Mr. Dovel, we
`conclude that Mr. Dovel has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent
`Owner in this proceeding and that Patent Owner has shown good cause for
`Mr. Dovel’s pro hac vice admission. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel
`Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (setting forth the
`requirements for pro hac vice admission) (Paper 7). Mr. Dovel will be
`permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`ORDER
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Greg Dovel is granted, and Mr. Dovel is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Dovel is to comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`2 Citations are to papers in IPR2015-00343.
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00343 (Patent 8,640,179 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00345 (Patent 8,205,237 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00347 (Patent 8,010,988 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00348 (Patent 8,656,441 B1)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Dovel is subject to the USPTO’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`James J. Elacqua
`Douglas R. Nemec
`Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
`James.Elacqua@skadden.com
`Douglas.Nemec@skadden.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Charles R. Macedo
`Brian A. Comack
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`N1-Google-IPR@arelaw.com
`
`
`3