`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`CLOUDFLARE, INC. AND SONICWALL INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00909
`
`Patent 8,243,593
`
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SABLE NETWORKS, INC.’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF DANIEL P. HIPSKIND
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Josh McHugh, “The n-Dimensional SuperSwitch,” WIRED (May 1,
`2001, 12:00 am) (available at
`https://www.wired.com/2001/05/caspian/ (last visited Aug. 16,
`2021))
`
`Email from Jun Zheng, U.S. District Court for Western District of
`Texas staff, to counsel for parties, with Subject “Sable Networks,
`Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21‐cv‐00175‐ADA
`and Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21‐cv‐
`00261‐ADA – Request for Telephone Conference” (Aug. 20, 2021,
`9:04 am)
`
`Scheduling Order, Dkt. 21, Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v.
`Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21‐cv‐00261‐ADA (June 24, 2021)
`
`Declaration of Daniel P. Hipskind in Support of Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission [NEWLY ADDED]
`
`Declaration of Erin McCracken in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission [NEWLY ADDED]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`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 Sable Networks, Inc.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board admit Daniel P. Hipskind
`
`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 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (“United Patents Order”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`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 Daniel P. Hipskind, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2004, Patent Owner requests
`
`the pro hac vice admission of Daniel P. Hipskind in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Kenneth J. Weatherwax (the
`
`undersigned) is a registered practitioner (Reg. No. 54,528).
`
`2. Mr. Hipskind is a partner at the law firm of Berger & Hipskind LLP.
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 8.
`
`3. Mr. Hipskind is an experienced litigator, and a part of his practice has
`
`consisted of patent litigation and other patent related matters such as PTAB
`
`litigations. Id. ¶ 9. A noncomprehensive list of representative patent litigations
`
`where Mr. Hipskind has been actively involved as patent litigation counsel include:
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-
`
`ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Splunk Inc., et al., No. 5:21-cv-00040-
`
`RWS (E.D. Tex.).
`
`• Castlemorton Wireless, LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-
`
`00482-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`• Castlemorton Wireless, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-
`
`00557-ADA (W.D. Tex).
`
`• Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00288-
`
`ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`• Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 1:18-cv-
`
`01977 (D. Del.).
`
`• Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 1:18-cv-10454
`
`(S.D.N.Y.).
`
`• DIFF Scale Operation Research, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co.,
`
`Ltd., No. 2:18-cv-00062-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`• DIFF Scale Operation Research, LLC v. Maxim Integrated Products,
`
`Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00611 (N.D. Tex.).
`
`• DIFF Scale Operation Research, LLC v. Extreme Networks, Inc., No.
`
`1:18-cv-02324 (S.D.N.Y.).
`
`• University of Tennessee Research Foundation v. Citrix Systems, Inc.,
`
`No. 3:17-cv-00894 (M.D. Tenn.).
`
`• University of Tennessee Research Foundation v. Microsoft
`
`Corporation, No. 3:17-cv-00184 (E.D. Tenn.).
`
`• Marking Object Virtualization Intelligence, LLC v. Hitachi Ltd., No.
`
`2:16-cv-01055-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`4. Mr. Hipskind’s experience in post-grant patent proceedings includes
`
`drafting patent owner responses and taking depositions. Id. ¶ 10. Representative
`
`matters where Mr. Hipskind is or was actively involved include:
`
`• Yahoo! Inc. v. CreateAds LLC (IPR2014-00200).
`
`• Crestron Electronics, Inc. v. Vesper Technology Research, LLC
`
`(IPR2017-00497).
`
`• Valens Semiconductor v. Vesper Technology Research, LLC
`
`(IPR2017-00865).
`
`• Unified Patents Inc. v. Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC (IPR2019-
`
`01085).
`
`• Arista Networks, Inc., et al. v. Castlemorton Wireless, LLC (IPR2020-
`
`00986).
`
`• Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-00909).
`
`• Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-00969).
`
`• Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-01005).
`
`• Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-01067).
`
`• Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-01469).
`
`• Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2021-01594).
`
`• Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2022-00003).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`• Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc., (IPR2022-00228).
`
`Ex. 2004 ¶ 10.
`
`5. Mr. Hipskind has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Id. ¶ 14. Mr. Hipskind has reviewed the Patent at issue as
`
`well as the Petition and the relevant art. Id.
`
`6. Mr. Hipskind is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
`
`California. Id. ¶¶ 1, 2.
`
`7. Mr. Hipskind has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 3.
`
`8.
`
`No application of Mr. Hipskind 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. Hipskind by any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 5.
`
`10. Mr. Hipskind 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. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`11. Mr. Hipskind 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). Id. ¶ 7.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`12. Mr. Hipskind has previously been admitted to appear, pro hac vice, in
`
`the following matters before the U.S.P.T.O:
`
`• Yahoo! Inc. v. CreateAds LLC (IPR2014-00200).
`
`Id. ¶ 11.
`
`13. Mr. Hipskind is concurrently applying for pro hac vice admission in
`
`the following matter before the U.S.P.T.O:
`
`• Cloudflare, Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc. (IPR2021-00969)
`
`Id. ¶ 12.
`
`14. A motion requesting Mr. Hipskind’s pro hac vice admission was filed
`
`in Arista Networks, Inc., et al. v. Castlemorton Wireless, LLC (IPR2020-00986).
`
`Id. ¶ 13. However, that petition for Inter Partes Review was terminated prior to
`
`the Board ruling on the pro hac vice motion; the Board neither granted nor denied
`
`the request for Mr. Hipskind’s pro hac vice admission. Id.
`
`15. Other than the matter identified in ¶¶ 12-14, supra, Mr. Hipskind has
`
`not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other proceedings before the U.S.P.T.O.
`
`in the last three years. Id. ¶ 14.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`DANIEL P. HIPSKIND.
`
`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).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`The facts outlined above in the Statement of Facts, and contained in the
`
`Declaration of Daniel P. Hipskind (Ex. 2004), establish that there is good cause to
`
`admit Mr. Hipskind pro hac vice in this proceeding. Patent Owner’s lead counsel
`
`is a registered practitioner. Mr. Hipskind 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 patent, petition, and references.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Mr. Hipskind pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` / Kenneth J. Weatherwax /
`Kenneth J. Weatherwax, Reg. No. 54,528
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`
`Date: January 24, 2022
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`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 SABLE NETWORKS, INC.’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF DANIEL P. HIPSKIND
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`EXHIBIT 2004
`
`The names and address of the parties being served are as follows:
`
`James L. Day
`Daniel Callaway
`Winston Liaw
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`jday@fbm.com
`dcallaway@fbm.com
`wliaw@fbm.com
`calendar@fbm.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` / Keith Moore /
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 24, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
