`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,725,253
`
`IPR2022-01308
`_________________________________________________
`
`REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST GENTEX CORPORATION’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`ADAM D. HARBER
`
`April 21, 2023
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, Real Party-in-Interest Gentex Corporation
`
`(“Gentex”) requests that the Board admit Adam D. Harber pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding to serve as backup counsel.
`
`II. Governing Rules and Precedent
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which 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.
`
`Motion for pro hac vice admission must be filed in accordance with Unified
`
`Patents v. Parallel Iron, IPR 2013-00639, Paper No. 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013)
`
`(the “Unified Patents Order”). The Unified Patents Order requires that a pro hac
`
`vice motion “[c]ontain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding.” Unified Patents
`
`Order at 3. A motion for pro hac vice admission should also be accompanied by
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`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 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.
`
`Unified Patents Order at 3–4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Facts
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Declaration of Mr.
`
`Harber (Ex. 2005) submitted herewith, Petitioner requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Adam D. Harber in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Gentex’s counsel, Arthur J. Argall III and D. Shayon Ghosh, are
`
`registered practitioners (Argall, Reg. No. 73,005); (Ghosh, Reg. No.
`
`75,865).
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Harber is a partner at Williams & Connolly LLP and an experienced
`
`litigation attorney. Mr. Harber has more than fifteen (15) years of
`
`litigation experience. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 2.)
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Harber has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Mr. Harber is Gentex’s counsel in the co-pending
`
`district court litigation, Gentex Corp. et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.,
`
`No. 22-cv-03892-YGR (N.D. Cal.), and, having been counsel in the
`
`district court litigation for over a year, has engaged in extensive strategic
`
`discussions with Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel and Gentex’s
`
`counsel regarding the matters at issue in this proceeding. (Ex. 2005
`
`¶ 10.)
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Harber is a member in good standing of the bars of New York and
`
`the District of Columbia. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 3.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Harber has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 4.)
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied Mr. Harber’s application
`
`for admission to practice before it. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 5.)
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or contempt
`
`citations on Mr. Harber. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 6.)
`
`Mr. Harber has read and will comply with the Office of Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`
`part 42 of 37 C.F.R. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 7.)
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Harber understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`will be subject to disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`(Ex. 2005 ¶ 8.)
`
`10. Mr. Harber has not been admitted to appear pro hac vice before the
`
`Board in the last three years. (Ex. 2005 ¶ 9.)
`
`IV. Good Cause Exists for the Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Harber 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`§ 42.10(c). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Meredith Martin Addy, and additional
`
`backup counsel for Gentex, Arthur J. Argall III and D. Shayon Ghosh, are all
`
`registered practitioners before the Board. Based on the facts contained herein, as
`
`supported by Mr. Harber’s declaration, good cause exists to admit Mr. Harber pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`As set forth in his declaration, Mr. Harber has established familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. As counsel for Gentex in the co-
`
`pending district court litigation for over a year, Mr. Harber is familiar with the
`
`issues now pending before the Board. Mr. Harber has also engaged in strategic
`
`discussions with Patent Owner and Gentex’s counsel throughout his time as
`
`counsel for Gentex in the district court litigation. Mr. Harber’s admission pro hac
`
`vice will permit him to participate in depositions in this matter. For these reasons,
`
`Gentex has a substantial need for Mr. Harber’s pro hac vice admission and his
`
`involvement in the prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully request that Mr. Harber be
`
`admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding. The Board is hereby authorized to charge
`
`any fees associated with this filing to Customer No. 129657.
`
`5
`
`
`
`April 21, 2023
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`/Arthur J. Argall III/
`Arthur J. Argall III (Reg. No. 73,005)
`Additional Backup Counsel for Real-
`Party-in-Interest and Licensee
`Gentex Corp.
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`680 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`202-434-5000 (Telephone)
`202-434-5029 (Facsimile)
`Gentex-IPR@wc.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01308
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that a true
`
`and correct copy of the foregoing was served on April 21, 2023, by delivering a
`
`copy via electronic mail on the following counsel of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Meta-Thales-IPR@kirkland.com
`
`April 21, 2023
`
`/Arthur J. Argall III/
`Arthur J. Argall III (Reg. No. 73,005)
`
`7
`
`