UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF PHILIP X. WANG UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`QUALTRICS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPINIONLAB, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`U.S. Patent 8,041,805
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF PHILIP X. WANG UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`FILED VIA PRPS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 4),
`
`Petitioner Qualtrics, LLC (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of attorney Philip X. Wang, Esq. in this proceeding. Petitioner has
`
`conferred with counsel for OpinionLab, Inc. (the “Patent Owner”), who does not
`
`oppose this motion.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c):
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`The Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 4) further instructs:
`
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c),
`
`recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of
`
`good cause. The parties are authorized to file motions for
`
`pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Such
`
`motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order --
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is
`
`available on the Board Web site under “Representative
`
`Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`
`(Id. at 3.) The above-referenced “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission” further provides:
`
`A motion for pro hac vice admission must:
`
`a.
`
`Contain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding.
`
`b.
`
`Be accompanied by 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`(IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, at 3.) As set forth below, and
`
`in
`
`the
`
`accompanying declaration of Philip X. Wang (“Wang Decl.”), each of these
`
`requirements is satisfied here.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE
`BOARD TO RECOGNIZE PHILIP X. WANG PRO HAC VICE IN
`THIS PROCEEDING
`
`As an initial matter, Mr. Wang is a member in good standing of the State Bar
`
`of California (Bar No. 262239) and is also admitted to practice before the U.S.
`
`District Courts for the Central District of California and the Northern District of
`
`California, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Wang Decl., ¶ 2.)
`
`Mr. Wang has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 3.) No application of Mr. Wang for admission to
`
`practice before any court or administrative body has ever been denied. (Id.) No
`
`court or administrative body has imposed sanctions or contempt citations against
`
`Mr. Wang. (Id.) Mr. Wang 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
`
`the C.F.R. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Mr. Wang acknowledges and agrees that he will be subject
`
`to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). (Id.)
`
`Petitioner’s lead counsel in this proceeding, Robert Steinberg, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 33144). Moreover, as set forth below (and in his
`
`accompanying declaration), Mr. Wang is both an experienced and technically
`
`trained litigation attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter
`
`at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Wang has an undergraduate degree in Computer Science from Stanford
`
`University and graduated from Columbia University School of Law in 2008. (Id. at
`
`¶ 5.) While at Stanford, Mr. Wang served as a research assistant in the Computer
`
`Science Department, where he developed tools to find bugs in the source code
`
`automatically. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Wang has over six years of patent litigation experience. (Id. at ¶ 6.) He
`
`is a member of Latham & Watkins intellectual property group, with a focus on
`
`patent litigation. (Id.) In 2014, Mr. Wang was named a “Rising Star” by Super
`
`Lawyers magazine in the area of intellectual property litigation. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Wang also has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in this proceeding. Mr. Wang has been actively involved in the related district
`
`court litigation between the Patent Owner and Petitioner, OpinionLab, Inc. v.
`
`Qualtrics Labs, Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-01574 (N.D. Ill.) since January 2014. (Id. at
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`¶ 7.) Mr. Wang was granted leave to appear pro hac vice in that matter on May 19,
`
`2014. (Id.) U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805 (the “‘805 Patent”), which is at issue in this
`
`proceeding, is one of six patents asserted by the Patent Owner in the district court
`
`litigation. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Mr. Wang has been actively involved in all aspects of the
`
`litigation, including Petitioner’s factual investigation and development of its
`
`invalidity and claim construction positions regarding the claims of the ‘805 Patent
`
`at issue here. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Wang has been actively involved in analyzing and assisting with the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review submitted in this proceeding, as well as the
`
`petitions submitted in four related proceedings that are currently pending before
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board:
`
`• Case No. IPR2014-00406: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,085,820, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,421,724; the ‘805 Patent – the patent at issue in this proceeding
`
`– is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,085,820;
`
`• Case No. IPR2014-00356: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,606,581, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,421,724;
`
`• Case No. IPR2014-00420: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,370,285;
`
`• Case No. IPR2014-00421: Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,024,668, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,370,285.
`
` (Id. at ¶ 9.) Mr. Wang is concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission to appear in
`
`each of these related proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 10.) He has not applied to appear pro
`
`hac vice in any other proceeding before the USPTO. (Id.)
`
`In view of Mr. Wang’s extensive knowledge of the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this proceeding and the
`
`related district court litigation, Petitioner has a substantial need for Mr. Wang’s pro
`
`hac vice admission and his involvement in the continued prosecution of this
`
`proceeding. In addition, admission of Mr. Wang pro hac vice will enable Petitioner
`
`to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of work between this proceeding and
`
`the district court litigation. See 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14, 2012), at 48661
`
`(Office’s comment on final rule discussing concerns about efficiency and costs
`
`where an entity has already engaged counsel for parallel district court litigation).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that Mr. Wang be
`
`admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Robert Steinberg___
`
`
`
`Robert Steinberg
`Reg. No. 33144
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67030
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234
`213.891.8763 (Fax)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the parties’ agreement to electronic
`
`service on August 21, 2014, I certify that on this 11th day of November,
`
`2014, a copy of:
`
`PETITIONER QUALTRICS, LLC’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF PHILIP X. WANG UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`was served by electronic mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel, at the
`
`following email addresses:
`
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy P. Cremen
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`timothycremen@paulhastings.com
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Paul Hastings LLP
`
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
` naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert Steinberg
`
`Robert Steinberg
`Reg. No. 33144
`Neil A. Rubin
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00366
`Patent 8,041,805
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Qualtrics, LLC’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
` Admission of Philip X. Wang
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 67030
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234
`213.891.8763 (Fax)
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
