UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTOO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`_________________
`
`TWITTER, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`WITHDRAW AS LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. YOUTOO HAS NOT FILED
`THE REQUIRED POWER OF ATTORNEY ................................................ 1
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT ALLOW YOUTOO TO
`MANIPULATE THE SCHEDULE BY CHANGING ITS COUNSEL ......... 2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`LIST OF PREVIOUSLY FILED EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibits 1001-1019: Filed and served March 24, 2017 with Twitter’s Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,304.
`
`Exhibit 1020: Filed and served October 18, 2017 with Twitter’s Unopposed
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice of Robert T. Cruzen.
`
`
`
`Page ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Twitter, Inc. (“Petitioner”) opposes Youtoo Technologies, LLC’s
`
`Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (Paper 12) (the “Motion”) for at least two reasons.
`
`First, Youtoo has not filed an updated power of attorney, and the Board should not
`
`authorize any dismissal without Youtoo making such arrangements. Second, Twitter
`
`is concerned that Youtoo is using its change of counsel as a pretext to seek delays
`
`and modification of the Scheduling Order. For at least these reasons, explained more
`
`fully below, the Board should not authorize any of Youtoo’s counsel to withdraw
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`II. YOUTOO HAS NOT FILED
`THE REQUIRED POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`If Youtoo’s backup and lead counsel wish to simultaneously withdraw,
`
`Youtoo must first designate appropriate replacements by filing an updated power of
`
`attorney. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10. Youtoo has not done so. Thus, the Board should not
`
`grant any of Youtoo’s counsel permission to withdraw without Youtoo formalizing
`
`its arrangements for substitute counsel and filing an updated power of attorney. See
`
`Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., Case No. IPR2015-00035, Paper 85 at 3-4
`
`(PTAB Jan. 13, 2017) (denying petitioner’s counsel’s request to file a motion to
`
`withdraw because petitioner had not filed a new power of attorney reflecting the
`
`change in counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)).
`
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD NOT ALLOW YOUTOO TO
`MANIPULATE THE SCHEDULE BY CHANGING ITS COUNSEL
`
`Twitter opposes its counsels’ requested withdrawals to the extent it would
`
`result in any impact to the current schedule. Youtoo’s Patent Owner Response in
`
`this proceeding is due December 14, 2017. Additionally, Youtoo has other Patent
`
`Owner Responses due sooner in other inter partes review proceedings filed by
`
`Twitter; namely IPR2017-00829 and IPR2017-00830. In those proceedings, Youtoo
`
`sought and obtained a schedule modification.
`
`Although this proceeding is on a different schedule, Twitter is concerned that
`
`Youtoo may similarly attempt to manipulate the schedule in this proceeding as a
`
`result of its change of counsel. However, Youtoo has not approached Twitter about
`
`extending the schedule in this case, and Twitter would oppose such a request if
`
`requested.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For each of the reasons discussed above, the Board should deny the Motion to
`
`Withdraw.
`
`Dated: November 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Todd M. Siegel/
`Todd M. Siegel (Registration No. 73,232)
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS
`LEAD AND BACKUP COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01131
`Patent 8,464,304
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on November 9, 2017, a complete copy
`
`Twitter, Inc.’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Withdraw as Lead and
`
`Backup Counsel of Record, was served on counsel for Youtoo Technologies, LLC
`
`via electronic mail as follows:
`
`Spencer C. Patterson
`Grable Martin Fulton PLLC
`1914 Skillman St., Ste. 110-144,
`Dallas, TX 75206
`Tel: 214- 396-8601
`Fax: 214- 988-0775
`Email: spatterson@gchub.com
`
`
`
`Scott McKeown
`Oblon, McClelland, Maier
` & Neustadt, LLP
`1940 Duke Street
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Tel: 703-412-6297
`Fax: 703-413-2220
`Email: cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`Stephen L. Levine
`Carrington, Coleman, Sloman &
` Blumenthal, L.L.P.
`901 Main Street, Suite 5500
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Tel: 214-855-3025
`Fax: 214-855-1333
`Email: slevine@ccsb.com
`
`
`By: /Todd M. Siegel/
`Todd M. Siegel (Registration No. 73,232)
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Page 1
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
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
