`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`