throbber
IPR2016-­‐01914  
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`REACTIVE SURFACES LTD., LLP
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2016-01914
`
`Patent No. 8,394,618 B2
`_________________________
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`OF
`MARK A.J. FASSOLD AND JORGE MARES
`
`
`Jonathan D. Hurt, Reg. No. 44,790
`McDaniel & Associates, PC
`300 West Avenue, #1316
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`David O. Simmons, Reg. No. 43,124
`IVC Patent Agency
`
`
`
`7637 Parkview Circle
`
`
`
`Austin, Texas 78731
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1  
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 8, 2016
`
`  
`
`

`
`IPR2016-­‐01914  
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c) and the Board’s authorization provided in
`
`Paper No. 3, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response, Petitioner requests that the board grant this
`
`Unopposed Motion to Admit Mark Fassold and Jorge Mares pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding on a
`
`showing of good cause. “[W]here lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion
`
`to appear pro hac vice may be granted upon a showing that counsel is an
`
`experienced litigation attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at the issue in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`Here, both lead and back-up counsel, David O. Simmons and Jonathan D.
`
`Hurt, are registered practitioners. Mr. Fassold has over seventeen years of litigation
`
`experience, with a focus on commercial litigation, including patent litigation, the
`
`majority of his career. Moreover, over the span of the last year, Mr. Fassold has
`
`become deeply familiar with both petitioner’s technology and petitioner’s
`
`intellectual property, including patents, patent applications, and the patent in
`
`dispute in this Inter Partes Review proceeding as well as the reasons for its
`
`invalidity. Accompanying this motion is the Declaration of Mark Fassold, where
`
`Mr. Fassold attests to his experience and familiarity. See generally Fassold Decl.
`
`(Ex. 1014). Specifically, Mr. Fassold attests that:
`
`2  
`
`  
`
`

`
`IPR2016-­‐01914  
`
`• He has been a practicing litigation attorney for over seventeen years. His
`
`practice has been primarily commercial litigation, including intellectual
`
`property litigation;
`
`• He has been admitted and licensed to practice as an Attorney and Counselor-
`
`at-Law in the United States Court of International Trade;
`
`• He is a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas;
`
`• He is a participating member of the team that is preparing the petitioners’
`
`IPR petition in this case and several other IPR petitions which challenge
`
`patents owned by the same patent owner that cover the same or similar
`
`technology and same or similar claimed subject matter as Patent No.
`
`8,394,618 B2
`
`Id. ¶¶ 1-3, 10.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Mr. Mares is a practicing litigation attorney with Watts Guerra
`
`LP. Mr. Mares primarily focuses on commercial litigation, including intellectual
`
`property litigation. Over the span of the last year, Mr. Mares has become familiar
`
`with Petitioner’s technology, intellectual property, and the patent in dispute in this
`
`Inter Partes Review, including the reasons for its invalidity. Accompanying this
`
`motion is the Declaration of Jorge Mares, where Mr. Mares attests to his
`
`experience and familiarity with the subject matter of this Inter Partes Review. See
`
`generally Mares Decl. (Ex. 1015). Specifically, Mr. Mares attests that:
`
`  
`
`3  
`
`

`
`IPR2016-­‐01914  
`
`• He is a litigation attorney and is admitted to practice in all state courts in the
`
`state of Texas, as well as the United States District Court for the Eastern,
`
`Western, and Southern District of Texas;
`
`• His practice is primarily commercial litigation, including intellectual
`
`property;
`
`• He is familiar with the subject matter in this proceeding; and
`
`• He is a participating member of the team that is preparing the petitioners’
`
`Inter Partes Review petition in this case and several other Inter Partes
`
`Review petitions which challenge patents owned by the same patent owner
`
`that cover the same or similar technology and same or similar claimed
`
`subject matter as Patent No. 8,394,618 B2.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, these facts establish good cause to recognize Mr. Fassold and
`
`Mr. Mares in this proceeding. Thus, Petitioner requests that the Board admit Mr.
`
`Fassold and Mr. Mares pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/David O. Simmons, Reg. No. 43,124
`David O. Simmons
`USPTO Reg. No. 43,124
`IVC Patent Agency
`7637 Parkview Circle
`Austin, Texas 78731
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP
`
`4  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`  
`
`

`
`IPR2016-­‐01914  
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and true correct copy of the foregoing
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`
`OF MARK A.J. FASSOLD AND JORGE MARES was served on November 8,
`
`2016 by email on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Joshua A. Lorentz (joshua.lorentz@dinsmore.com)
`
`Richard H. Schabowsky (richard.schabowsky@dinsmore.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/David O. Simmons
`David O. Simmons
`Reg. No. 43,124
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP
`
`5  
`
`
`
`Dated: November 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`  

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket