`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: April 23, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
` Case IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Cecil E. Key
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Cecil E.
`
`Key in these proceedings. Paper 16 (“Motion”).2 Petitioner has not filed an
`
`opposition. The Motions are granted.
`
`In its Motions, Patent Owner states that there is good cause to
`
`recognize Mr. Key during these proceedings because Mr. Key “is an
`
`experienced patent litigator and has a familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue,” and the admission of Mr. Key “will facilitate the party’s ability to
`
`effectively participate.” Id. at 2. The Motions include, as exhibits,
`
`Declarations made by Mr. Key, attesting to and sufficiently explaining these
`
`facts. Ex. 2013. In addition, Mr. Key “agrees to be subject to the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth
`
`in part 42 of 37 C.F.R, and the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.” and agrees to “submit to disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).” Id. at 3.
`
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`
`Mr. Key has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent
`
`Owner in this proceeding. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (setting
`
`forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions seeking admission Pro Hac
`
`Vice for Cecil E. Key is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Key shall comply with the Office
`
`
`2 We cite to documents filed in IPR2018-01257. Similar documents are filed
`in IPR2018-01258.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257 (Patent 8,552,978 B2)
`IPR2018-01258 (Patent 8,441,438 B2)
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide as updated by the August 2018 Update, 83
`
`Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), and the Board’s Rules of Practice
`
`for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of 37 C.F.R.,3 and is subject to the Office’s
`
`Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.,
`
`and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); and;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding; Mr.
`
`Key is authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew Smith
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`
`Andrew Baluch
`baluch@smithbaluch.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jay Kesan
`jay@jaykesan.com
`
`
`
`3 In the Declarations, Mr. Key states that “I have 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 C.F.R.” Exhibit 2013 ¶ 9. The Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials are
`set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations. We deem this
`harmless error.
`
`3
`
`
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
