Case IPR2015-00657
`
`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 No. IPR2015-00657
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF AUDREY MANESS PURSUANT TO 37 § C.F.R. 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2015-00657
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045
`______________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF AUDREY MANESS PURSUANT TO 37 § C.F.R. 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
` Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, and as authorized in the Board’s Notice of
`
`Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 3) (“Authorizing Order”), entered on
`
`February 24, 2015, Patent Owner At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust
`
`requests that the Board admit Audrey Maness pro hac vice in this proceeding
`
`involving U.S. Patent No. 6,286,045 (“the ’045 patent”).
`
`Petitioner Google Inc. also filed four related petitions on the same day,
`
`February 2, 2015: two involving the same ’045 patent (IPR2015-00658 and
`
`IPR2015-00660), and another two involving U.S. Patent No. 6,014,698 (“the ’698
`
`patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of the ’045 patent, (IPR2015-00662 and
`
`IPR2015-00666). Patent Owner has asserted both the ’045 patent and the ’698
`
`patent against Petitioner Google in a pending district court litigation in the
`
`Northern District of California, Richard A. Williamson, On Behalf of and as
`
`Trustee for At Home Bondholders’ Liquidating Trust v. Google Inc., No. 3:15-cv-
`
`00966-JD.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES AND PRECEDENT
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`
`
`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 Authorizing Order requires that any motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) must be filed in accordance with the
`
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” entered in Case
`
`IPR2013-00639 (Authorizing Order at 2).
`
`The Order in Case IPR2013-00639 requires that a Motion for pro hac vice
`
`Admission contain (1) “a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding”; and (2) “an
`
`affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the
`
`following”:
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii. 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;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`v. 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.;
`
`vi. 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.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Audrey Maness in
`
`Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (“Maness Decl.”), establish good cause
`
`to admit Ms. Maness pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`1. Audrey Maness is an experienced litigating attorney. Ms. Maness has
`
`been an attorney for more than eight years. (Maness Decl. ¶ 1.) In particular, Ms.
`
`Maness has been litigating patent cases for approximately seven of those years.
`
`(Id.)
`
`2. Lead counsel Garland Stephens is a registered practitioner (Reg. No.
`
`37,242). (Id. ¶2.) Back-up counsel Justin Constant is a registered practitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`
`(Reg. 66,884). (Id.) With respect to this proceeding, Ms. Maness will work closely
`
`with the lead and back-up counsel. (Id.)
`
`3. Ms. Maness is a member in good standing of the Texas 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 Courts of Appeals for the Fifth, Eighth,
`
`and Federal Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern and
`
`Eastern Districts of Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6.)
`
`4. Ms. Maness is familiar with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding based on his work as lead counsel in the pending district court case
`
`Richard A. Williamson, On Behalf of and as Trustee for At Home Bondholders’
`
`Liquidating Trust v. Google Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00966-JD (N.D. Cal. March 3,
`
`2015), which involves the same patent at issue in this proceeding. (Id. ¶7.)
`
`5. Ms. Maness has been actively involved in all aspects of the pending
`
`district court case, which was originally filed in the District of Delaware (Case No.
`
`1:14-cv-00216-GMS) on February 19, 2014 before getting transferred to the
`
`Northern District of California on March 2, 2015, including the issue of validity of
`
`the patents-in-suit that include the patent at issue in this proceeding. (Id. ¶8.)
`
`Patent Owner also asserted the related ’698 patent in this case. In view of her legal
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`
`experience and familiarity with the issues in the present matter, Patent Owner has
`
`requested her services in this proceeding. Denial of her appearance in this case
`
`would create an undue burden for the Patent Owner. (Id.)
`
`6. Ms. Maness 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. ¶9.)
`
`7. Ms. Maness also agrees to be subject to the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office 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. ¶10.)
`
`8. Ms. Maness has not applied to appear pro hac vice before this office
`
`before.
`
`9. Petitioner Google has indicated that it will not oppose this Motion.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`The facts, contained in the Statement of Facts above and in the attached
`
`Maness Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Ms. Maness pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. §42.10. Lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, Ms. Maness is an experienced litigation attorney, and Ms. Maness has
`
`an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Audrey Maness pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
` Dated: June 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Garland T. Stephens
`Garland T. Stephens Reg. No. 37,242
`Justin L. Constant Reg. No. 66,883
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 546-5011
`(713) 224-9511
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00657
`Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Audrey Maness
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 26, 2015, a copy of PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF AUDREY MANESS was
`
`served by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System as
`
`well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to counsel of record for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`Google Inc. at the following addresses:
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek (Reg. No. 54,179)
`mholoubek-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Michael V. Messinger (Reg. No. 37,575)
`Mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Justin L. Constant
`
`Justin L. Constant
`
`Reg. No. 66883
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
