throbber
Atty Docket No. SERC-007/00US
`(307075-2007)

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,890,802
`
`  
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 
`
`    
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 
`
`   
`
`SERVICENOW, INC. 
`Petitioner 

`v. 

`HEWLETT‐PACKARD COMPANY 
`Patent Owner 
`
`  
`
`Case IPR2015‐00702 
`Patent 7,890,802 
`
`   
`
`PETITIONER’S CORRECTED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION 
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(c) 
`
`    
`

`

`

`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,890,802
`
`Atty Docket No. SERC-007/00US
`(307075-2007)
`
`  
`
`Petitioner ServiceNow, Inc. respectfully requests that the Board recognize 
`
`Mark R. Weinstein, Esq., as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding. 
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND 
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed in compliance 
`
`with  and  pursuant  to  the  “Order—Authorizing  Motion  for  Pro  Hac  Vice 
`
`Admission” in Case No. IPR2013‐00639 (MPT) [“the Order”].  
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS 
`
`As required by the Order, the following statement of facts shows that there 
`
`is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Weinstein pro hac vice. 
`
`Mr. Weinstein is an experienced litigation attorney and has been involved 
`
`in  numerous  complex  litigations  in  state  and  federal  courts.    Mr.  Weinstein’s 
`
`biography is attached hereto as Exhibit 1009. 
`
`Mr.  Weinstein  has  reviewed  U.S.  Patent  No.  7,890,802,  and  the  petition 
`
`already filed in this proceeding.  Further, Mr. Weinstein is counsel of record in the 
`
`co‐pending  litigation  between  the  parties  entitled  Hewlett‐Packard  Company  v. 
`
`ServiceNow,  Inc.,  before  the  U.S.  District  Court  of  the  Northern  District  of 
`
`California, Case No. 5:14‐cv‐00570‐BLF; and, as such, is familiar with the subject 
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. 
`
`Therefore, Petitioner respectfully submits that there is good cause for the 
`

`
`

`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,890,802
`
`Atty Docket No. SERC-007/00US
`(307075-2007)
`
`  
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Weinstein as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding. 
`
`III.
`

`
`AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEEKING TO APPEAR 
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is accompanied by an 
`
`Affidavit of Mark R. Weinstein, filed as Exhibit 1010, as required by the Order. 
`
`Respectfully Submitted, 
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe/ 
`Heidi L. Keefe 
`Reg. No. 40,673 
`
`DATED:  April 3, 2015 

`COOLEY LLP 
`ATTN:  Patent Docketing 
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700 
`Washington D.C. 20004 
`T:  650‐843‐5001 
`F:  650‐849‐7400 


`115510335 v1  
`

`
`

`
`MARK WEINSTEIN
`PARTNER
`
`
`
`PRACTICES:
`Covered Business Method Review
`Intellectual Property
`Intellectual Property Litigation
`Inter Partes Review
`Patent Office Litigation
`Post-Grant Review
`Trademark, Copyright & Advertising
`
`
`
`OFFICE:
`Palo Alto
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California
`94304
`
`T: +1 650 843 5007
`F: +1 650 849 7400
`E: mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark Weinstein is a partner in the Cooley Litigation department and member of the Intellectual Property
`practice group. He joined the Firm in 2009 and is resident in the Palo Alto office.
`
`Mr. Weinstein's practice focuses on patent and other complex technology-related disputes. He has handled
`a number of high-stakes litigations throughout the United States involving a variety of technologies,
`including computer software and hardware, Internet applications, electronic transactions, e-commerce,
`computer networking, entertainment software, and medical devices.
`
`Representative cases include:
`
`Patents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facebook, Inc. Mark has represented and is representing Facebook in more than a dozen patent
`infringement actions, including Yahoo! Inc v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Leader Technologies,
`Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Del.), Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Mass.), Mekiki Co.,
`Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. (D. Del.), Cross-Atlantic Capital Partners, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Pa.),
`Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Tex.), Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook,
`Inc. (D. Del.), and several others.
`
`
`HTC Corporation and HTC America. Mark has defended and is currently defending HTC in
`several patent litigations including HTC v. Technology Properties Ltd. (N.D. Cal.), Digitude
`Innovations LLC v. HTC (D. Del. and U.S. ITC), ADC Technology, Inc. v. HTC et al. (N.D. Ill.),
`Microunity Systems Eng'g v. HTC et al. (E.D. Tex.) and BandSpeed, Inc. v. HTC Corp. et al.
`(W.D. Tex), SP Technologies, Ltd. v. HTC et al. (N.D. Ill.), Implicit Networks, Inc. v. HTC (N.D.
`Cal.), and several others.
`
`LinkedIn Corporation. Mark is representing LinkedIn in Jaipuria v. LinkedIn Corp. et al. (E.D.
`Tex.) and Cathas Advanced Technologies LLC v. LinkedIn Corp. (D. Del.)
`
`EMC Corporation. In Hewlett-Packard Company et al. v. EMC Corporation (N.D. Cal.), Mr.
`Weinstein represented EMC in a patent infringement suit involving thirteen patents relating to
`mass data storage systems, servers and printers. HP initiated the lawsuit by suing EMC for
`alleged infringement of seven patents. EMC counterclaimed against HP with six of its own
`patents. Following claim construction proceedings and motion practice, the case settled with HP
`
`
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`001
`
`

`
`
`
`agreeing to pay EMC more than $325 million, one of the largest patent settlements on record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In-Three, Inc. In IMAX Corporation v. In-Three, Inc. (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein defended In-Three
`in a patent infringement suit involving software for producing three dimensional motion
`pictures. In-Three defeated a motion for preliminary injunction filed by IMAX that threatened to
`shut down In-Three's operations.
`
`
`eBay Inc. In Tumbleweed Communications Corp. v. eBay, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein
`defended eBay and its subsidiary PayPal against allegations of infringement of three software
`patents related to electronic financial transactions. The case settled on favorable terms during the
`pendency of a summary judgment motion filed by eBay and PayPal that sought to invalidate
`Tumbleweed's patents in light of the prior art.
`
`Trade Secrets
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cirrus Logic, Inc. In Silvaco Data Systems v. Cirrus Logic, Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Mark
`represented Cirrus Logic in a trade secret lawsuit involving Electronic Design Automation
`technology. Cirrus Logic obtained summary judgment that it did not misappropriate any of the
`plaintiff's trade secrets, which was affirmed on appeal.
`
`
`Alstom ESCA Corporation. In ABB Power T&D Company v. Alstom ESCA Corporation et al.
`(N.D. Cal.), Mr. Weinstein was a member of a team representing Alstom in a six week federal jury
`trial involving claims for trade secret misappropriation, copyright infringement, breach of contract
`and a variety of business torts, which resulted in a unanimous verdict exonerating the client from
`liability. The technologies in the case related to hardware and software systems for the electric
`power industry.
`
`
`Advanced Modular Sputtering (AMS). In Sputtered Films, Inc. v. Advanced Modular Sputtering,
`Inc. et al. (Santa Barbara Sup. Ct.), Mr. Weinstein represented AMS in a trade secret case
`involving PVD sputtering technologies. The case generated an oft-cited decision clarifying
`California's statute requiring plaintiffs to identify their trade secrets, Advanced Modular Sputtering
`v. Superior Court, 132 Cal. App. 4th 826 (2005).
`
`
` Minerva Networks, Inc. In Myrio, Inc. v. Minerva Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Mark defended
`Minerva against trade secret, unfair competition and false advertising claims involving
`technologies for delivering television and multimedia services over broadband networks. The
`case settled favorably after the court ruled that Myrio had failed to adequately identify its trade
`secrets.
`
`Technology/IP Licensing
`
`
`
`DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA). In RealNetworks, Inc., et al. v. DVD Copy Control
`Association, Inc. et al. (N.D. Cal.) and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.
`
`
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`002
`
`

`
`
`
`(Santa Clara Sup. Ct.), Mark represented the DVD CCA in two separate actions alleging breach
`of the technology license that covers use of the Content Scramble System (CSS) technology that
`is used to prevent copying of motion picture DVDs. DVD CCA obtained an injunction from the
`trial courts in both actions prohibiting sales of products that did not comply with the license. The
`Kaleidescape action is currently on appeal.
`
` Marshal Software. Mark represented Marshal, a leading producer of Internet security and anti-
`spam software, in three trademark and unfair competition lawsuits against competing companies.
`All three cases resulted in the defendants agreeing to rebrand their products to avoid any use of
`Marshal's trademarks.
`
`Mr. Weinstein is a frequent lecturer on all aspects of intellectual property protection and has taught classes
`at Santa Clara University School of Law. Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Weinstein was a partner at a large
`international law firm and served as the managing partner in charge of that firm's Silicon Valley office. He is
`also a former law clerk for the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, United States District Court for
`the Southern District of California.
`
`Education
`
`
`
`
`
`University of San Diego School of Law
`JD, 1997
`
`University of California, San Diego
`BS, 1992
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`
`
`California
`
`Court Admissions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court, Central District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1009
`
`003
`
`

`
`001
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1010
`
`

`
`002
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1010
`
`

`
`003
`
`ServiceNow's Exhibit No. 1010
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
`
`
`
`  
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Sections 42.6, that a complete copy 
`of  the  attached  PETITIONER’S  MOTION  FOR  PRO  HAC  VICE  ADMISSION  (Mark 
`Weinstein) and related documents, are being electronically served on the 3d day 
`of April, 2015, the same day as the filing of the above‐identified document in the 
`United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and Appeal Board, upon 
`the  Patent  Owner  by  serving  the  correspondence  address  of  record  with  the 
`USPTO as follows: 

`Joseph F. Haag 
`Jason D. Kipnis 
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 
`950 Page Mill Road 
`Palo Alto, CA  94304 
`Joseph.Haag@wilmerhale.com 
`Jason.Kipnis@wilmerhale.com 
`WHIPDocketStaff@wilmerhale.com 
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe /
`Heidi L. Keefe      
`Reg. No. 40,673 
`
`  
`
`DATED:  April 3, 2015. 

`COOLEY LLP 
`ATTN:  Heidi L. Keefe 
`Patent Docketing 
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 
`700 
`Washington, D.C. 20004 
`Tel:  (650) 843‐5001 
`Fax: (650) 849‐7400 

`114901842 v1  

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket