UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-0065i
`Patent 6,286,045 B 1
`
`GOOGLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLEINC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AT HOME BONDHOLDERS' LIQUIDATING TRUST
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-0065i
`Patent 6,286,045 B 1
`
`GOOGLE INC.'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`1 Case IPR20 15-00660 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR20 15-00657
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and as authorized in the Board's Notice of
`
`Filing Date issued February 24, 2015 (Paper 3), Petitioner Google Inc. ("Google")
`
`respectfully requests the pro hac vice admission of Matthias A. Kamber in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner has indicated that it will not oppose this Motion.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`Section 42.1 0( c) states as follows:
`
`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.
`
`As stated in the Board's February 24, 2015, Notice ofFiling Date, any
`
`motion for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) must be filed in
`
`accordance with the guidance specified in the "Order Authorizing Motionfor Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission" entered in IPR2013-00639 (Paper 7). According to that
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR20 15-00657
`
`guidance, pro hac vice motions can be filed "no sooner than (21) days after service
`
`of the petition."
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Affidavit of Mr. Kamber
`
`(GOOG 1 029) submitted herewith, Petitioner requests the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Matthias A. Kamber in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner's lead counsel, Michelle K. Holoubek, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 54,1 79).
`
`2. Mr. Kamber is a partner of the law firm Keker & Van Nest LLP.
`
`(GOOG 1029, ~3.)
`
`3. Mr. Kamber is an experienced litigation attorney. Mr. Kamber has
`
`been litigating patent cases for nearly 13 years. Mr. Kamber has been
`
`practicing law since 2002 and has extensive experience litigating patent
`
`infringement cases in many different district courts across the United States.
`
`(Id. at ~4.) Among his experience in patent litigation matters, Mr. Kamber
`
`has been lead counsel in multiple trials, Markman hearings, patent summary
`
`judgment proceedings, and other patent-related hearings and pleadings
`
`concerning, inter alia, patent validity and infringement issues. (Id. at ~5.)
`
`4. Mr. Kamber has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Mr. Kamber is Petitioner Google Inc.'s trial counsel
`
`- 2-
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR20 15-00657
`
`against the Patent Owner in its co-pending district court litigation,
`
`Williamson v. Google Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00966-JD (N.D. Cal. March 3,
`
`2015), which was originally filed in the District ofDelaware (Case No. 1:14-
`
`cv-00216-GMS) on February 19, 2014 before getting transferred to the
`
`Northern District of California on March 2, 2015. (Id. at ~ 12). As trial
`
`counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Kamber has been actively involved in all aspects
`
`of its district court litigation, including the issue of validity of the patents-in-
`
`suit that include the patent at issue in this proceeding. (I d.)
`
`5. Mr. Kamber is a member in good standing of the District of Columbia
`
`Bar, the California State Bar, the New York State Bar, and the
`
`Massachusetts State Bar. (Id. at ~6.)
`
`6. Mr. Kamber has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. (!d.)
`
`7.
`
`No application ofMr. Kamber for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied. (Id. at ~7 .)
`
`8.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Kamber by any court or administrative body. (Id. at ~8.)
`
`9. Mr. Kamber 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 the Code of Federal Regulations. (Id. at ~9.)
`
`- 3-
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR2015-00657
`
`10. Mr. Kamber understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code
`
`of Professional Responsibility set forth in 3 7 C.F .R. § § 11.101 et. seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 3 7 C.F .R. § 11.19( a). (I d. at ~1 0.)
`
`11. Mr. Kamber has applied to appear pro hac vice before this Office in
`
`the following proceedings in the past three years: IPR2015-00196, IPR2015-
`
`00198, and IPR2015-00209 and was admitted to practice in these
`
`proceedings as back-up counsel on May 21, 2015. (Jd.at ~11.) Mr. Kamber is
`
`also currently seeking pro hac vice admission to represent petitioner Google
`
`Inc. in a related matter for case IPR20 15-00662. (!d.) Otherwise, Mr.
`
`Kamber has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other proceedings
`
`before the Office in the last three (3) years. (Id.)
`
`12. This motion was filed no sooner than 21 days after service of the
`
`Petition in this proceeding, which occurred on February 2, 2015.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`Mr. KAMBER 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
`
`practitioner and to any other conditions as the Board may impose. 37 C.P.R.§
`
`42.10(c). Petitioner's lead counsel, Michelle K. Holoubek, is a registered
`
`practitioner. Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Kamber's
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR20 15-00657
`
`affidavit (GOOG 1 029), good cause exists to admit Mr. Kamber pro hac vice in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`As supported by his affidavit, Mr. Kamber is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney with nearly 13 years of patent litigation experience. Mr. Kamber also has
`
`a deep and established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding as he is Petitioner Google Inc.'s trial counsel in its co-pending district
`
`court litigation against the Patent Owner, Williamson v. Google Inc., No. 3: 15-cv-
`
`00966-JD (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2015). This proceeding involves the same patent-
`
`U.S Patent No. 6,286,045- that is at issue in that co-pending litigation.
`
`As trial counsel for Petitioner, Mr. Kamber has been actively involved in all
`
`aspects of its district court litigation, including Petitioner's factual investigation
`
`and development of its invalidity positions regarding the claims of the '045 patent
`
`being challenged in this proceeding. In view of Mr. Kamber's extensive knowledge
`
`of the precise subject matter at issue in this proceeding, and in view of the
`
`interrelatedness of this proceeding and the co-pending district court litigation,
`
`Petitioner has a substantial need for Mr. Kamber's pro hac vice admission and his
`
`involvement in depositions and the continued prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`Admission of Mr. Kamber pro hac vice will enable Petitioner to avoid unnecessary
`
`expense and duplication of work between this proceeding and its district court
`
`litigation. See 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012), at 48661 (Office's comment on
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER
`IPR20 15-00657
`
`final rule discussing concerns about efficiency and costs where an entity has
`
`already engaged counsel for parallel district court litigation). Admission of Mr.
`
`Kamber will also ease the burden on Petitioners' existing lead and backup counsel
`
`in upcoming actions.
`
`- 6-
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTI-ITAS A. KAMBER
`IPR2015-00657
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons as well as the reasons contained in the attached
`
`affidavit, petitioner Google Inc. respectfully requests admission of Matthias A.
`
`Kamber as counsel pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any fees
`
`associated with this filing to Deposit Account 19-0036 (Customer ID No. 45324).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C
`
`Registration No. 54,179
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`,ojzvh-
`
`Date:
`1100 New ork Avenue
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing UNOPPOSED
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER and
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MATTHIAS A. KAMBER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION was served on October 20,2015, to the following
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner via e-mail, pursuant to the parties' agreement
`.
`.
`concemmg service:
`
`Garland Stephens (Lead Counsel)
`Justin Constant (Backup Counsel)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`700 Louisiana, Suite 1700
`Houston, Texas 77002
`garland.stephens@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`At Home Bondholders' Liquidating Trust
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/P&J~
`
`I
`
`Date:
`1100 New York A venue
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
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
