`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 22
`Entered: September 22, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WHATSAPP INC. and FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRIPLAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Douglas Weider
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`On September 14, 2015, Patent Owner filed a Motion requesting the
`
`pro hac vice admission of Douglas Weider. Paper 17. Petitioner did not file
`
`an opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion.
`
`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.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission, the Board requires the moving party to provide a statement of
`
`facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac
`
`vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear. Lead
`
`counsel for Patent Owner is Mr. Barry Schindler, a registered practitioner.
`
`In its Motion, Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for
`
`Mr. Weider’s pro hac vice admission because he is an experienced litigation
`
`attorney and has experience with the subject matter involved in this
`
`proceeding. Paper 17, 2. A Declaration of Douglas Weider (Ex. 2001)
`
`attesting to, and sufficiently explaining, the required facts, accompanies the
`
`Motion.1 The Declaration complies with the requirements for pro hac vice
`
`admission and establishes that Mr. Weider is an experienced attorney with
`
`an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–8.
`
`Based on the facts set forth above, we conclude that Mr. Weider has
`
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`1We understand paragraph 6 of Mr. Weider’s affidavit indicates that he will
`be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the
`USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility, effective May 3, 2013.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for Mr.
`
`Weider’s pro hac vice admission. Mr. Weider will be permitted to appear
`
`pro hac vice in the instant proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Douglas Weider in the instant proceeding is granted and Mr. Weirder is
`
`authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the instant
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Weider 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. Weider 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).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2015-00740
`Patent 8,332,475 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi Keefe
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`
`Andrew Mace
`amace@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Barry Schindler
`njdocket@gtlaw.com
`
`Jeremy Monaldo
`Monaldo@fr.com
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
