`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO.,
`ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC,
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00426
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,761,804 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER, BILLJCO, LLC’s MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`ADMISSION OF COURTLAND C. MERRILL UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`2007
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`2011
`
`2012
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`
`40379981.1
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying the Motion to Transfer
`Venue of Defendants Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., Aruba
`Networks, LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc., Filed February 16, 2022
`(E.D. Tex.)
`Memorandum Opinion & Order Denying Apple Inc.'s Motion to
`Transfer Venue filed February 24, 2022 (Public Version) (W.D.
`Tex)
`LegalMetric District Report Texas Western District Court in
`Patent Cases, January 2017-September 2021
`LegalMetric District Report Texas Eastern District Court in Patent
`Cases, January 2017-September 2021
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss Claims of Patent Owner
`and Cisco Systems, Inc. with Prejudice (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Order filed February 24, 2022 (W.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Order March 23, 2022 (W.D. Tex.)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order March 14,
`2022 (E.D. Tex.)
`BillJCo's Motion to Compel (Redacted Copy) (E.D. Tex.)
`Defendants, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba
`Networks, LLC’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Redacted Copy)
`(E.D. Tex.)
`Affidavit of Service of Apple Inc. on May 28, 2021 (W.D. Tex.)
`Affidavit of Service of Cisco Systems, Inc. on May 26, 2021 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Affidavit of Service of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company on
`May 25, 2021 (E.D. Tex.)
`Affidavit of Service of Aruba Networks on May 25, 2021 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Apple Inc.'s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (W.D. Tex.)
`Defendants' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (E.D. Tex.)
`First Amended Docket Control Order (E.D. Tex.)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (Cisco
`System, Inc.) (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed May 25, 2021 (Hewlett
`Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Apple Inc.'s Final Invalidity Contentions (W.D. Tex.) (pp 1097-
`1421)
`Order regarding Apple Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (W.D. Tex.)
`Order regarding Mediation between Hewlett Packard Enterprise
`Company, Aruba Networks and Patent Owner (E.D. Tex.)
`Affidavit of Courtland C. Merrill in Support of Pro Hac Vice
`Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c)
`
`
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding;” ‘[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the following”:
`
`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 2024, 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. 2024 at ¶ 3).
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Mr. Merrill is an experienced trial attorney whose practice focuses
`
`exclusively on business and intellectual property disputes. (Id. at ¶ 4).
`
`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. 2024 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).
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 2024 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. 8,761,804 B2 (“the ‘804 patent”), and
`
`has had direct involvement with the district court cases that are the subject of the
`
`‘804 patent: 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); BillJCo, LLC v.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. No. 2:21-cv-00181 (E.D. Tex.); and BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett
`
`Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:21-cv-00182 (E.D. Tex.). (Ex. 2024 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: August 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Mailing address for all correspondence:
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP
`Centre Square West
`1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
`
`
`
`Brian R. Michalek
`Brian R. Michalek (Reg. No. 65,816)
`Joseph M. Kuo (Reg. No. 38,943)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, LLP
`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 August 11, 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: August 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40379981.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`40379981.1
`
`40379981.1
`
`
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
