`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
`
`