`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ANGEL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, SHARON FENICK, and
`MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Eliza Beeney and Kaylee E. Hoffner
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all above-captioned
`proceedings. We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in
`each proceeding. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading in
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`
`On November 18, 2022, Angel Technologies Group LLC (“Patent
`Owner”) filed motions for admission pro hac vice of Eliza Beeney (Paper
`62) and Kaylee E. Hoffner (Paper 7) in each of the above-captioned
`proceedings (collectively, “Motions”). The Motions are supported by
`Declarations of Ms. Beeney (Ex. 2002) and Ms. Hoffner (Ex. 2004). The
`Motions are granted.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`moving party to provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for
`the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration
`of the individual seeking to appear in the proceeding. See Paper 4, 2 (citing
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission”)) (“Notice”).
`Patent Owner states that “Ms. Beeney is an experienced litigation
`attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`this proceeding,” that “Ms. Beeny has been involved in numerous complex
`litigations in federal courts,” and that Ms. Beeney has reviewed the Petitions
`and the patents at issue. Paper 6, 2. Patent Owner states the same of
`
`
`2 Papers and Exhibits refer to Proceeding IPR2023-00057. Corresponding
`papers and exhibits were filed in IPR2023-00058, IPR2023-00059, and
`IPR2023-00060.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`Ms. Hoffner. Paper 7, 2. Patent Owner additionally states that Ms. Beeney
`is of record in litigation between the parties. Paper 6, 2.
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Ms. Beeney and Ms. Hoffner meet the
`requirements for admission pro hac vice. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 1–8; Ex. 2004
`¶¶ 1–7. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac
`vice admission of Ms. Beeney and Ms. Hoffner. Ms. Beeney and Ms.
`Hoffner will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c).
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for admission pro hac vice
`of Eliza Beeney and Kaylee E. Hoffner for these proceedings are granted;
`Ms. Beeney and Ms. Hoffner are authorized to act only as back-up counsels
`in the instant proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Beeney and Ms. Hoffner shall
`comply with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 3 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280
`(Nov. 21, 2019), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Beeney and Ms. Hoffner are subject
`to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00057 (Patent 8,954,432 B2)
`IPR2023-00058 (Patent 9,959,291 B2)
`IPR2023-00059 (Patent 10,417,275 B2)
`IPR2023-00060 (Patent 10,628,480 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`David M. Tennant
`Alan M. Billharz
`Chitrajit Chandrashekar
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`david.tennant@allenovery.com
`alan.billharz@allenovery.com
`chitrajit.chandrashekar@allenovery.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ashley N. Moore
`Eliza Beeney
`Kaylee Hoffner
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`amoore@mckoolsmith.com
`ebeeney@mckoolsmith.com
`khoffner@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
