`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 29, 2015
`
``
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS’ LIQUIDATING TRUST,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00657 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)1
`Case IPR2015-00658 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00660 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00662 (Patent 6,014,698)
`Case IPR2015-00666 (Patent 6,014,698)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Jared Bobrow
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
` 1
`
` This Order addresses issues that are identical in the listed cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue a single paper to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00657 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00658 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00660 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00662 (Patent 6,014,698)
`IPR2015-00666 (Patent 6,014,698)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has filed a Motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Jared Bobrow. Paper 8 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).2 Patent Owner also filed a
`
`declaration of Mr. Bobrow in support of its Motion. Paper 9. Petitioner
`
`does not oppose the Motion. Paper 8, 5.
`
`We have reviewed the Motion and the supporting declaration. Based
`
`on the statement of good cause set forth in the Motion and the facts averred
`
`in the declaration, we conclude that Mr. Bobrow has sufficient qualifications
`
`to represent Patent Owner in these proceeding and that there is a need for
`
`Patent Owner to have its counsel in the related district-court cases involved
`
`in these proceedings. See Unified Patents v. Parallel Iron, Case IPR2013-
`
`00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice
`
`admission) (Paper 7). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Mr. Bobrow will be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice in these proceedings as back-up counsel
`
`only.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`Order
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Jared Bobrow in these proceedings is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow is authorized to represent
`
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these proceedings;
`
`
`
` 2
`
` The Motion and accompanying papers are identical in all proceedings
`listed in the caption. Accordingly, for ease of reference, we refer to the
`papers filed in the first case: IPR2015-00657.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00657 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00658 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00660 (Patent 6,286,045 B1)
`IPR2015-00662 (Patent 6,014,698)
`IPR2015-00666 (Patent 6,014,698)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow 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
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michelle Holoubek (Lead Counsel)
`Michael Messinger (Back-up Counsel)
`mhoubek-PTAB@skgf.com
`mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`1100 New York Ave., N.W.
`Washington DC 20005
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Garland Stephens (Lead Counsel)
`Justin Constant (Back-up Counsel)
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`Justin.costant@weil.com
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston TX 77002
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
