`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SYMANTEC CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Alexander Walden
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`On April 19, 2016, Petitioner, Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”),
`
`filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Alexander Walden
`
`(Paper 16). Symantec represents that it conferred with Patent Owner,
`
`Finjan, Inc. (“Finjan”), and that Finjan does not object to Petitioner’s
`
`motion. Paper 16, 1. Indeed, Finjan has not filed an opposition.
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding
`
`upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). If lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be permitted to appear pro
`
`hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney
`
`and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.” Id.
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Symantec is Joseph J. Richetti,
`
`a registered practitioner. Symantec’s motion relies on an affidavit of
`
`Mr. Walden (Ex. 1025). Mr. Walden swears that he is a member in good
`
`standing of the state bar of New York. Ex. 1025 ¶ 4. Mr. Walden also
`
`swears that he has never been suspended or disbarred from practice by any
`
`court or administrative body, that he has never had a court or administrative
`
`body deny his application for admission to practice before it, and that no
`
`court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or contempt
`
`citations on him. Id. Mr. Walden identifies two prior proceedings before
`
`the Office in which he has applied to appear, one in which he was admitted
`
`and one in which no written order issued, and he swears that he has not
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`applied to appear in any other proceedings before the Office in the last three
`
`years. Id. at ¶ 7.
`
`Mr. Walden further swears that he is familiar with the subject matter
`
`at issue in this proceeding; specifically, according to Mr. Walden, he has
`
`litigated patent cases in the areas of electrical engineering, computer science,
`
`and electronic devices since at least 2009, he began representing and
`
`advising Symantec in matters relating to patent strategy in early 2013, he is
`
`familiar with U.S. Patent No. 8,677,494 B2 at issue in this matter (“the
`
`’494 patent”), and he assisted Symantec in preparing its Petition and other
`
`submissions in the instant proceeding. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`Mr. Walden further swears (1) that he has read and will comply with
`
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations,1 and
`
`(2) that he understands that he will 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. at ¶¶ 5, 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Although not explicitly specified in Mr. Walden’s affidavit, we understand
`that Mr. Walden intended to refer to Part 42 “of Title 37” of the Code of
`Federal Regulations, where the Board’s Trial Practice rules are set forth.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, we determine that Symantec has established
`
`good cause for admission, pro hac vice, of Mr. Alexander Walden.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Symantec’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Alexander Walden for these proceedings is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walden is authorized to represent
`
`Symantec only as back-up counsel;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Symantec shall continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this case;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Walden shall 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. Walden is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01892
`Patent 8,677,494 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Daniel A. Crowe
`Alexander Walden (pro hac vice)
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`dacrowe@bryancave.com
`alexander.walden@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah
`Jeffrey H. Price
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim
`FINJAN, INC.
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`5
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
