`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.7
`Dated: April 24, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EBAY INC. and PAYPAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`XPRT VENTURES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00024 (Patent 7,610,244 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00025 (Patent 7,627,528 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00026 (Patent 7,512,563 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00027 (Patent 7,483,856 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00028 (Patent 7,599,881 B2)
` Case CBM2017-00029 (Patent 7,567,937 B2)1
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Per Curiam
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jared Bobrow
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00024 (Patent 7,610,244 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00025 (Patent 7,627,528 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00026 (Patent 7,512,563 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00027 (Patent 7,483,856 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00028 (Patent 7,599,881 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00029 (Patent 7,567,937 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On February 7, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jared Bobrow. Paper 6 (“Mot.”).2 A Declaration of Jared
`Bobrow in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission was
`submitted with the Motion. Ex. 1016. Petitioner filed a Power of Attorney
`including Mr. Bobrow. Paper 2. Patent Owner did not file an opposition. In
`view of the above, after consideration of the record before us, Petitioner’s
`Motions are granted.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`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, subject to
`the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. 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.
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioner, Adrian Percer, is a
`registered practitioner. Petitioner asserts there is good cause for us to
`recognize Mr. Bobrow pro hac vice in this proceeding. Mot. 2–4.
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to the papers and exhibits filed in
`CBM2017-00024. Petitioner filed substantially identical papers and exhibits
`in CBM2017-00025, CBM2017-00026, CBM2017-00027, CBM2017-
`00028, and CBM2017-00029.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00024 (Patent 7,610,244 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00025 (Patent 7,627,528 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00026 (Patent 7,512,563 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00027 (Patent 7,483,856 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00028 (Patent 7,599,881 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00029 (Patent 7,567,937 B2)
`
`Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are supported by the Declaration of Mr.
`Bobrow. Ex. 1016.
`Mr. Bobrow declares that he is a member in good standing with the
`State Bar of California and was admitted to the California Bar on June 16,
`1988. Ex. 1016 ¶ 1. Mr. Bobrow also declares that he is an experienced
`litigation attorney familiar with the subject matter at issue in these
`proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Mr. Bobrow declares that he has never been
`suspended or disbarred by any court or administrative body (id. ¶ 2), has not
`been denied for admission to practice before any court or administrative
`body (id. ¶ 3), and has not been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any
`court or administrative body (id. ¶ 4).
`Mr. Bobrow additionally declares he has read and will comply with
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s rules as set for in 37
`C.F.R. § 42 (id. ¶ 5), and 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. ¶ 6).
`Mr. Bobrow declares that he is counsel for Petitioner eBay, Inc. and
`PayPal, Inc. in related district court litigation involving the patents at issue
`in these proceedings. Id. ¶ 9. On this record, we determine that Mr. Bobrow
`has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner as
`back-up counsel in these proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner has
`established that there is good cause for the pro hac vice admission of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00024 (Patent 7,610,244 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00025 (Patent 7,627,528 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00026 (Patent 7,512,563 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00027 (Patent 7,483,856 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00028 (Patent 7,599,881 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00029 (Patent 7,567,937 B2)
`
`Mr. Bobrow in this proceedings. Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jarod Bobrow are granted.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`Jared Bobrow are granted, and Mr. Bobrow is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file updated mandatory
`notices identifying Mr. Bobrow as back-up counsel in accordance with 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow shall be subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the
`Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et.
`seq.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2017-00024 (Patent 7,610,244 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00025 (Patent 7,627,528 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00026 (Patent 7,512,563 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00027 (Patent 7,483,856 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00028 (Patent 7,599,881 B2)
`Case CBM2017-00029 (Patent 7,567,937 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Adrian Percer
`Jared Bobrow
`Brian Chang
`WEIL, GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`jared.bobrow@weil.com
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`George Likourezos
`Michael A. Scaturo
`g.likourezos@verizon.net
`adcourt@optonline.net
`
`