`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00144
`Patent 8,095,879
`____________
`PATENT OWNER NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001
`
`Declaration of Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D
`
`2002
`
`CV of Craig Rosenberg, Ph.D
`
`2003
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, p. 243 (3d ed. 1997)
`
`2004
`
`Declaration of Nathan Lowenstein in Support of Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner Neonode Smartphone LLC
`
`(“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board admit Nathan Nobu
`
`Lowenstein pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel. Patent Owner has
`
`met and conferred with Petitioner, and Petitioner does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`Section 42.10(c), 37 C.F.R., provides that:
`
`The Board 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 and to any other conditions as the
`Board may impose. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel
`who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`The Board has further required that a motion for pro hac vice admission be
`
`filed in accordance with the “Order - Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” entered in Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639,
`
`Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013) (“United Patents Order”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`The United Patents Order requires that such motions (1) “[c]ontain a
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding[,]” and (2) “[b]e accompanied by an affidavit
`
`or declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the following:”
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii. No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v. The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board's Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`
`vi. The individual will be subject to the U.S.P.T.O. Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following statement of facts, and supported by the Declaration
`
`of Nathan Nobu Lowenstein, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2004, Patent Owner
`
`requests the pro hac vice admission of Nathan Nobu Lowenstein in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Kenneth J. Weatherwax (the
`
`undersigned), is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 54,528).
`
`2. Mr. Lowenstein is a partner at the law firm of Lowenstein &
`
`Weatherwax LLP. Ex. 2004 ¶ 8.
`
`3. Mr. Lowenstein is an experienced litigator, and the majority of his
`
`practice has consisted of patent litigation and other patent related matters such as
`
`PTAB litigations and matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit. Id. ¶ 9. Representative patent litigations where Mr. Lowenstein
`
`has been actively involved as patent litigation counsel include:
`
`• Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 8:08-
`
`cv-01123 (C.D. Cal.).
`
`•
`
`The Quantum World Corp. v. Atmel Corp., 2:07-cv-00024 (E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`St. Jude Med., Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc., 4:08-cv-04101 (W.D.
`
`Ark.).
`
`• Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 2:05-cv-00094 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 9.
`
`4. Mr. Lowenstein’s experience in post-grant patent proceedings
`
`includes drafting patent owner responses, taking depositions, and presenting oral
`
`arguments before the Board. Id. ¶ 10. Representative matters where Mr.
`
`Lowenstein is or was actively involved include:
`
`• OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC (IPR2021-01056, -
`
`01064).
`
`• Cohesity Inc. v. Commvault Systems, Inc. (IPR2021-00934, -00935).
`
`• Netflix Inc. et al. v. DivX, LLC (IPR2020-00558, -00614, -00646).
`
`• DISH Network LLC et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2020-
`
`01041).
`
`• Apple Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2020-00236, -00255, -
`
`00280, -00281, -00285, -00506, -00507, -00584).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2020-00106, -00112, -00113, -
`
`00114, -00141, -00142, -00158, -00498, -00526, -00527, -00582, -
`
`00583).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2019-01192, -01197, -01198, -
`
`01199, -01200).
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. DivX, LLC (IPR2019-01379).
`
`• ZTE (USA), Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2019-00412, -00460, -
`
`00461).
`
`• Apple, Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC (IPR2019-00124, -00125, -00139, -00140, -
`
`00141, -00181).
`
`• Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2018-01106,
`
`-01108, -01120, -01122, -01124, -01125, -01126, -01127).
`
`• Google LLC v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2018-01047 through -
`
`01052, -01101, -01116 through -01118).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2018-01033, -01038, -01040, -
`
`01105, -01107, -01144).
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2018-
`
`00096, -00599).
`
`• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2018-00017, -00366,
`
`-00582, -00864, -01023, -01039).
`
`• Alphonso, Inc. v. Free Stream Media Corp. (IPR2017-01730, -01731).
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2017-00985, -
`
`00986, -00998, -01002 through -01006).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`• Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (IPR2016-01621
`
`through -01623, IPR2017-00114, -00116, -00238).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., LLC (IPR2016-01398, -01400 through
`
`-01402).
`
`• Matters involving Solocron Media, LLC (IPR2015-00342, -00349, -
`
`00350, -00364, -00376, -00380, -00383, -00387 through -00392).
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. IpLearn-Focus, LLC (IPR2015-00095, -00097).
`
`• Matters involving Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (CBM2014-00038
`
`through -041, -00177 through -00180, CBM2015-00098, -00101, -
`
`00102, IPR2016-00032, -00033).
`
`• Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Diamond Coating Techs., LLC (IPR2014-01545
`
`through -01548).
`
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 10.
`
`5. Mr. Lowenstein has an established familiarity with the subject matter
`
`at issue in this proceeding. Id. ¶ 15. Mr. Lowenstein has reviewed the Patent at
`
`issue as well as the Petition and the relevant art. Id.
`
`6. Mr. Lowenstein is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
`
`California. Id. ¶¶ 1, 2.
`
`7. Mr. Lowenstein has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 3.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`No application of Mr. Lowenstein for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body has ever been denied. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`9.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Lowenstein by any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`10. Mr. Lowenstein has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`
`37 C.F.R. Ex. 2004 ¶ 6.
`
`11. Mr. Lowenstein understands that he will be subject to the U.S.P.T.O.
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Ex. 2004 ¶ 7.
`
`12. Mr. Lowenstein has previously been admitted to appear, pro hac vice,
`
`in the following matters before the U.S.P.T.O.:
`
`• Edwards Lifesciences Corp. et al. v. Aortic Innovations LLC
`
`(IPR2021-01527, -01584; IPR2022-00034, -00193).
`
`• Cohesity, Inc. v. Commvault Systems, Inc. (IPR2021-00934, -00935).
`
`• OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC (IPR2021-01056, -
`
`01064).
`
`• Netflix Inc. et al. v. DivX, LLC (IPR2020-00558, -00614, -00646).
`
`• DISH Network LLC et al. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2020-
`
`01041).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`• Apple Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2020-00236, -00255, -
`
`00280, -00281, -00285, -00506, -00507, -00584).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2020-00106, -00112, -00113, -
`
`00114, -00141, -00142, -00158, -00498, -00526, -00527, -00582, -
`
`00583).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2019-01192, -01197, -01198, -
`
`01199, -01200).
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. DivX, LLC (IPR2019-01379).
`
`• ZTE (USA), Inc. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2019-00412, -00460, -
`
`00461).
`
`• Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2018-01106,
`
`-01108, -01124, -01125).
`
`• Google LLC v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2018-01047 through -
`
`01052, -01101, -01116 through -01118).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2018-01033, -01038, -01040, -
`
`01105, -01107, -01144).
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2018-
`
`00096, -00599).
`
`• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2018-00017, -00366,
`
`-00582, -00864, -01023, -01039).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`• Facebook, Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC (IPR2017-00985, -
`
`00986, -00998, -01002 through -01006).
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., LLC (IPR2016-01398, -01401, -
`
`01402).
`
`• Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (IPR2016-01621
`
`through -01623, IPR2017-00114, -00116).
`
`• Compass Bank v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc. (CBM2015-00098, -
`
`00101, -00102).
`
`• Microsoft Corp. v. IpLearn-Focus, LLC (IPR2015-00095, -00097).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 11.
`
`13. Mr. Lowenstein has previously applied for admission, pro hac vice, in
`
`the following matters before the U.S.P.T.O. which were terminated before the
`
`application was granted:
`
`• Rubrik Inc. v. Commvault Systems, Inc. (IPR2021-00535, -00589, -
`
`00590).
`
`• Apple, Inc. v. IXI IP, LLC (IPR2019-00124, -00125, -00139, -00140, -
`
`00141, -00181).
`
`• Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. SEVEN Networks, LLC (IPR2018-01120,
`
`-01122, -01126, -01127).
`
`• Kingston Tech. Co. v. Polaris Innovations, Ltd. (IPR2017-00238).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`Intel Corp. v. Future Link Sys., LLC (IPR2016-01400).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 12.
`
`14. Mr. Lowenstein has applications for pro hac vice admission which are
`
`currently pending in the following matters:
`
`• Hulu, LLC v. DivX LLC (IPR2021-01418, -01419).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 13.
`
`15. Other than the matters identified in ¶¶ 12-14, supra, Mr. Lowenstein
`
`has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other proceedings before the
`
`U.S.P.T.O. in the last three years.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN.
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice upon a showing of good
`
`cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner and to
`
`any other conditions as the Board may impose. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`The facts outlined above in the Statement of Facts, and contained in the
`
`Declaration of Nathan Nobu Lowenstein (Ex. 2004), establish that there is good
`
`cause to admit Mr. Lowenstein pro hac vice in this proceeding. Patent Owner’s
`
`lead counsel is a registered practitioner. Mr. Lowenstein has extensive experience
`
`in patent litigation and post-grant patent proceedings. He also has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue, including the patents, petitions, and
`
`references.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Mr. Lowenstein pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Kenneth J. Weatherwax /
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`
`
`Date: February 22, 2022
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the following documents were served
`
`by electronic service, by agreement between the parties, on the date signed below:
`
`PATENT OWNER NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF NATHAN NOBU LOWENSTEIN
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`EXHIBIT 2004
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`David Holt
`Tiffany C. Miller
`James M. Heintz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 22, 2022
`
`IPR50095-0015IP1@fr.com
`holt@fr.com
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Vinson Lin /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`