`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00131
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER, BILLJCO, LLC’s MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`ADMISSION OF COURTLAND C. MERRILL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Amended Memorandum and Opinion & Order Denying
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue [Public
`Version]
`LegalMetrics District Report for Texas Western District Court
`from January 2017 to September 2021
`Claim Construction Order
`Complaint
`Summons Returned by Apple
`Apple, Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms
`Affidavit of Courtland C. Merrill in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c)
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c), the undersigned, on behalf of the Patent
`
`Owner, BillJCo, LLC (“BillJCo”), hereby respectfully requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Courtland C. Merrill in this proceeding,
`
`II GOVERNING LAW, RULES AND PRECEDENT
`
`
`
`
`Section § 42.10 (c) of 37 C.F.R. provides as follows:
`
`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 advised that any motion for pro hac vice admission under 37
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10 (c) must be filed in accordance with the “Order—Authorizing Motion
`
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission” entered in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Unified
`
`Patents Order”).
`
`
`
`The Unified 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;” ‘[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the following”:
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`District of Columbia;
`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;
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rule of Practice for
`Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`The individual will be subject to the USPTO 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
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`(See Unified Patents Order, p.3.)
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Affidavit of Courtland C.
`
`Merrill, submitted herewith as Exhibit 2008, Patent Owner, BillJCo, LLC requests
`
`pro hac vice admission of Mr. Merrill in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner, BillJCo, LLC’s lead counsel, Brian R. Michalek, is a
`
`registered practitioner (Reg.No. 65,816).
`
`2. Mr. Merrill is an attorney at the law firm Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr,
`
`LLP. (Ex. 2008 at ¶ 3).
`
`3. Mr. Merrill is an experienced trial attorney whose practice focuses
`
`exclusively on business and intellectual property disputes. (Id. at ¶ 4).
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`Mr. Merrill has been an intellectual property litigation attorney for
`
`nearly 20 years, and has been litigating patent cases involving a variety
`
`of technologies during that entire time period. (Id.) Mr. Merrill has
`
`litigated numerous patent disputes involving the legal concepts of both
`
`infringement and validity, and has significant experience in all aspects
`
`of litigation, including depositions, claim construction proceedings and
`
`various stages of trial. (Id.).
`
`4.
`
` Mr. Merrill is a member of good standing of the Bars of: Minnesota,
`
`Wisconsin, the United State District Court of the District of Minnesota,
`
`The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Ex. 2008 at ¶5).
`
`5. Mr. Merrill has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶6).
`
`6.
`
`No application of Mr. Merrill for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body has ever been ultimately denied. (Id. at ¶7).
`
`7.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against Mr.
`
`Merrill by any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶8).
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`8. Mr. Merrill has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rule of Practice for Trials set for in part
`
`42 of 37 C.F.R. (Id. at ¶9).
`
`9.
`
` Mr. Merrill understands that he will be subject to the USPTO 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. at ¶10).
`
`10. Mr. Merrill has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any proceedings
`
`before the Office in the last three (3) years. (Id. at ¶11).
`
`11. Mr. Merrill has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. (Id. at ¶12, 13; see also § IV. below.)
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. MERRILL IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`“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.” 37 C.F.R §
`
`42.10(c). “[W]here 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.” Id.
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Brian R. Michalek, is a registered practitioner.
`
`Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Merrill’s affidavit, good
`
`cause exists to admit Mr. Merrill pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`As set forth in his Affidavit, Mr. Merrill is an experienced trial attorney with
`
`nearly 20 years of patent litigation experience. (Ex. 2008 at ¶4.) Mr. Merrill’s
`
`extensive patent litigation experience provides him with a thorough understanding
`
`of the legal theories advanced in this proceeding. (Id. at ¶¶4,12-13.) He has reviewed
`
`in detail the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,639,267 (“the ‘267 patent”), and has
`
`had direct involvement with the United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`of California BillJCo, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-3201-YGR (previously
`
`pending in the Western District of Texas Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-00528-ADA).
`
`(Ex. 2008 at ¶14.)
`
`
`
`Based on the facts contained here, as supported by Mr. Merrill’s Affidavit,
`
`good cause exists to admit Mr. Merrill pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner, BillJCo, LLC respectfully requests
`
`that Courtland C. Merrill be admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 25, 2022
`
`Mailing address for all correspondence:
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP
`Centre Square West
`1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Brian R. Michalek
`Brian R. Michalek (Reg. No. 65,816)
`Joseph M. Kuo (Reg. No. 38,943)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP
`
`40305382.1
`
`
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
`
`
`
`161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Tel: (312) 876-7151
`Brian.Michalek@saul.com
`Joseph.Kuo@saul.com
`
`Brian Landry (Reg. No. 52,074)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP
`131 Darmouth Street, Suite 501
`Boston, MA 02116
`Tel: (617) 912-0969
`Brian.Landry@saul.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner, BillJCo, LLC
`
`Certification of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that Patent Owner, BillJCo, LLC’s Motion
`
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Courtland C. Merrill Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`was served electronically via e-mail on July 25, 2022 in its entirety on the following
`counsel of record for the Petitioner:
`
`
`Larissa.Bifano@dlapiper.com
`Jonathan.Hicks@dlapiper.com
`Joseph.Wolfe@us.dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brian R. Michalek/
`(Reg. No. 65,816)
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`Jonathan Hicks
`Joseph Wolfe
`
`
`
`Date: July 25, 2022
`
`40305382.1
`
`