Filed: December 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`CHAD J. PETERMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`SNAP INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`_______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`CHAD J. PETERMAN
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent 8,326,327
`
`
`I.
`
`Snap Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests that the Board recognize Chad J. Peterman
`
`as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding. This motion was authorized in the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 3 at 2. Because this motion meets all of the Board’s
`
`requirements, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this motion.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Petitioner has been authorized to file motions seeking admission pro hac vice
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c). See Paper 3 at 2. Petitioner’s lead counsel and back-up
`
`counsel are registered practitioners. Paper 1 at 1. As set forth in the accompanying
`
`declaration, Mr. Peterman is an attorney at Paul Hastings LLP. Ex. 1010 at ¶ 2. He
`
`is an experienced litigating attorney with more than twenty years of experience and
`
`has served as lead counsel in numerous patent infringement lawsuits before the
`
`district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Id.
`
`Mr. Peterman has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Id. at ¶ 9. Mr. Peterman has reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,326,327
`
`(“the ’327 patent”), the patent-at-issue, and other papers associated with this matter.
`
`Id.
`
`In addition, Mr. Peterman is a member in good standing of the Bar for the
`
`State of New York. Id. at ¶ 1. He has never been suspended or disbarred from
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent 8,326,327
`
`practice before any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 3. He has never had an
`
`application for admission to practice before any court or administrative body denied.
`
`Id. at ¶ 4. He has never had sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body. Id. at ¶ 5. He 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 title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Id. at ¶ 6. He agrees to 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 ¶ 7. This is the first
`
`time he has applied to appear pro hac vice at the USPTO. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`III. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
`
`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). For example, where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion
`
`to appear pro hac vice may be granted upon showing that counsel who is seeking
`
`pro hac vice admission is “an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id. The motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission must contain a statement of facts showing good cause and be
`
`accompanied by a declaration of the individual who is seeking admission. See
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper No. 7 at 3-4
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent 8,326,327
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013). The declaration in turn must contain certain attestations.
`
`Id.
`
`This motion and the accompanying declaration meet all of the Board’s
`
`requirements. The lead counsel in this proceeding, Yar R. Chaikovsky, is a registered
`
`practitioner. Paper 1 at 1. Mr. Peterman is an experienced litigating attorney and has
`
`an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. See Ex.
`
`1012 at ¶¶ 2, 9. Mr. Peterman’s declaration makes the necessary attestations. Id. at
`
`¶ 10.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner submits that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Peterman as counsel pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00715
`U.S. Patent 8,326,327
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Yar R. Chaikovsky/
`Yar R. Chaikovsky, Reg. No. 39,625
`Chad Peterman, (pro hac vice pending)
`David Okano, Reg. No. 66,657
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`Date: December 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2019-00715
`Patent 8,326,327
`
`
`I hereby certify that on December 18, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Chad J.
`
`Peterman to be served electronically on Patent Owner at the following addresses:
`
`Michael T. Hawkins
`hawkins@fr.com
`
`Nicholas W. Stephens
`nstephens@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 18, 2019
`
`By: /Yar R. Chaikovsky/
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (Reg. No. 39,625)
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
