`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: July 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01079 (Patent 8,213,970 B2)
`Case IPR2018–01080 (Patent 9,408,055 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Michael A. Berta
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both cases. The parties are not authorized to use this
`style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01079 (Patent 8,213,970 B2)
`Case IPR2018–01080 (Patent 9,408,055 B2)
`I. DISCUSSION
`
`Google, LLC (“Petitioner”) has filed authorized motions for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Michael A. Berta (IPR2018-01079,
`Paper 15; IPR2018-01080, Paper 13) in the above-identified proceedings
`(“Motions”). The Motions are supported by Declarations of Mr. Berta
`(IPR2018-01079, Ex. 1021; IPR2018-01080, Ex. 1042). AGIS Software
`Development, LLC (“Patent Owner”) has not opposed the Motions.
`Petitioner asserts there is good cause for us to recognize Mr. Berta pro
`hac vice in these proceedings. Paper 13, 7.2 Petitioner’s assertions in this
`regard are supported by the Declarations of Mr. Berta. (IPR2018-01079, Ex.
`1021; IPR2018-01080, Ex. 1042). Upon review, the facts alleged in
`Mr. Berta’s Declarations comply with all the requirements set forth in our
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See
`Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 1–16; see also Paper 13, 1 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7)
`(representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission”)).
`On this record, we determine that Petitioner has established good
`cause for the pro hac vice admission of Mr. Berta in these proceedings.
`Accordingly, the Motions are granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The papers and exhibits filed in the two proceedings relating to the
`Motions are substantially the same. Unless stated otherwise, herein we cite
`to IPR2018-01080.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01079 (Patent 8,213,970 B2)
`Case IPR2018–01080 (Patent 9,408,055 B2)
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Mr. Michael A. Berta are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Berta is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel only in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Berta shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the August 2018 Update, 83
`Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) and the July 2019 Update (84 Fed.
`Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Berta shall be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the Office’s
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall, within ten (10) business
`days of the date of this Order, file updated mandatory notices identifying
`Mr. Berta as back-up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01079 (Patent 8,213,970 B2)
`Case IPR2018–01080 (Patent 9,408,055 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan Tuminaro
`Robert E. Sokohl
`Karen Wong-Chan
`Dohm Chankong
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jtuminar-ptab@sternekessler.com
`rsokohl-ptab@sternekessler.com
`kwchan-ptab@sternekessler.com
`dchankong-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Enrique W. Iturrald
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`
`
`4
`
`