Paper 92
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: November 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)1,2
`Cases IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`Cases IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be entered in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`2 Bungie, Inc., who filed Petitions in IPR2016-00933, IPR2016-00934,
`IPR2016-00935, IPR2016-00936, IPR2016-00963, and IPR2016-00964, has
`been joined as a Petitioner in these proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: November 21, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.,
`2K SPORTS, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., and
`BUNGIE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)1,2
`Cases IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`Cases IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be entered in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`2 Bungie, Inc., who filed Petitions in IPR2016-00933, IPR2016-00934,
`IPR2016-00935, IPR2016-00936, IPR2016-00963, and IPR2016-00964, has
`been joined as a Petitioner in these proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)
`IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice —
`Paul J. Andre
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion for
`
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul J. Andre, accompanied by a declaration of
`
`Paul J. Andre, in each of the above-identified proceedings. E.g., Case
`
`IPR2015-01951, Paper 69.3 Petitioner, Activision Blizzard, Inc., Electronic
`
`Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 2K Sports, Inc., Rockstar
`
`Games, Inc., and Bungie, Inc., has not filed an opposition to the Motion.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. In authorizing
`
`motions for pro hac vice, we require the moving party to provide a statement
`
`of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac
`
`vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`In the Motion, Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for Mr.
`
`Andre’s pro hac vice admission because he is an experienced litigation
`
`attorney and has technical understanding and familiarity with the asserted
`
`patents through his representation of Acceleration Bay in district court. E.g.,
`
`Paper 69, 5. In his declaration, Mr. Andre attests to having been denied pro
`
`hac vice admission before the Board in an Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`
`3 The declaration (id. at Ex. 1) should have been filed as a separate exhibit.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)
`IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal, Everbridge, Inc., Federal Signal Corp., Twitter, Inc. v. Copper
`
`Notification, Inc., Control No. 95/001,425, Appeal 2013-007396 because (1)
`
`Patent Owner was already represented by counsel registered before the
`
`USPTO, (2) there was no explanation of the relationship between the
`
`proceeding and the district court litigation, and (3) Mr. Andre erroneously
`
`stated that he would comply with Part 42 of Title 37 of the C.F.R. rather
`
`than Part 41. Id. at Ex. 1 ¶ 5. Mr. Andre further attests that he never has
`
`been denied admission to any other court or administrative body and that he
`
`has been admitted pro hac vice before the Board in four inter partes review
`
`proceedings. Id. at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 5, 9.
`
`Upon review of Patent Owner’s Motion and supporting evidence, we
`
`determine that Patent Owner has demonstrated that Paul J. Andre has
`
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in the
`
`above-identified proceedings. We also recognize that there is a need for
`
`Patent Owner to have him involved in these proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established that there is good cause
`
`for admitting Paul J. Andre.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`of Paul J. Andre is granted; Mr. Andre is authorized to represent Patent
`
`Owner as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the proceedings;
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)
`IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Paul J. Andre is to comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and to
`
`be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Andrew Thomases
`James L. Davis, Jr.
`Daniel W. Richards
`Matthew R. Shapiro
`Joseph E. Van Tassel
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`james.l.davis@ropesgray.com
`daniel.richards@ropesgray.com
`matthew.shapiro@ropesgray.com
`joseph.vantassel@ropesgray.com
`
`Michael T. Rosato
`Andrew S. Brown
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`Michael Tomasulo
`Michael Murray
`Andrew Sommer
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01951, IPR2015-01953 (Patent 6,714,966 B1)
`IPR2015-01964, IPR2015-01996 (Patent 6,829,634 B1)
`IPR2015-01970, IPR2015-01972 (Patent 6,701,344 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`mmurray@winston.com
`asommer@winston.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Hannah
`Michael Lee
`Shannon Hedvat
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`mhlee@kramerlevin.com
`shedvat@kramerlevin.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
