`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
`
`