Atty Docket No. WHAT‐001‐00US 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
`
` Inter Partes Review of  
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 
`
`  
`
`    
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 
`
`    
`
` 
`
`  
`
`WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, Inc. 
`Petitioner 
` 
`v. 
` 
`TriPlay Communications Ltd. 
`Patent Owner 
`
`   
`
`Case IPR2015‐00740 
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 
`
`   
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION 
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(c) 
`
`    
`
`

`
`Atty Docket No. WHAT‐001‐00US 
` 
` 
`
` 
` 
`
` Inter Partes Review of  
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 
`
`Petitioner WhatApp Inc. and Facebook, 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 to this Motion. 
`
`Mr.  Weinstein  has  reviewed  U.S.  Patent  No.  8,332,475,  and  the  petition 
`
`already  filed  in  this  proceeding.    Further,  Mr.  Weinstein  is  familiar  with  the 
`
`pending litigation between the parties pending before the U.S. District Court for 
`
`Delaware  entitled  Triplay,  Inc.  et  al.  v.  WhatsApp  Inc.,  Case  No.  1:13‐cv‐01703‐
`
`LPS; 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 
`
`  
`
`1 
`
`

`
`Atty Docket No. WHAT‐001‐00US 
` 
` 
`Board to recognize Mr. Weinstein as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding. 
`
` Inter Partes Review of  
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 
`
` 
` 
`
`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 as required by the Order. 
`
`Dated: March 18, 2015 
` 
`COOLEY LLP 
`ATTN: Patent Group 
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 
`Washington, DC  20004 
`Tel: (650) 843‐5001  
`Fax: (650) 849‐7400  
` 
`
` 
`
`By: 
` 
` 
` 
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` 
`
`/Heidi L. Keefe/ 
`Heidi L. Keefe 
`Reg. No. 40,673 
`Counsel for Petitioner    
`WhatsApp Inc. and Facebook, 
`Inc. 
`
` 
`
`  
`
`2 
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Atty Docket No. WHAT—O0t!00US
`
`Inter Partes Review of US. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`AFFlDAV|T OF MARK R. WEINSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADlVllSSiON
`
`I, Mark R. Weinstein, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby attest to the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`lam a member in good standing of the Bar of California as well as the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court for the
`
`Central District of California, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Federal Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by
`
`any court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`l have 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.
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Code of ‘Professional Responsibility set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20, et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`

`
`Atty Docket No. WHAT—OOi/OOUS
`
`inter Panes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475
`
`11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`i have applied to appear pro hac vice in docket numbers lPR2013-
`
`00478, lPR2013—00479, |PR2013—00480, IPRZO13-00481, lPR2014—00052, lPR2014—
`
`00053, lPR2014—00093, lPR2014-00242, IPRZO14-00415, IPRZO14-566, CBM2014—
`
`00138, IPRZO14-01172, lPR2015-00691 and lPR2015—00692.
`
`I have not applied to
`
`appear pro hac vice before the Office in any other proceeding in the last three (3)
`
`years.
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney with experience with complex
`
`litigation in both state and federal courts.
`
`lam familiar with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding, including the prior art on which Petitioners rely in this
`
`request and U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475.
`
`l have also reviewed the pertinent issues
`
`of claim construction that have been briefed in this proceeding.
`
`,
`
`If
`
`1
`sf‘?
`
`I
`;7aw:w:
`
`Mark R. Weinstein
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite 700
`
`Washington D.C.
`T: 650-843-5007
`
`F: 650—849~7400
`
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`
`114580471 v1
`
`

`
`CALIFORNIA JURAT WITH AFFIANT STATEMENT
`‘(V ,\,\4\A
`
`
`
`
`= "See Attached Document (Notary to cross out lines 1-6 below)
`See Statement Below (Lines 1-6 to be completed only by document signer[s], not Notary)
`
`G
`CODE § 8202
`
`
`
`Signature of Document Signer No.
`
`1
`
`Signature of Document Signer No. 2 (if any)
`
`A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
`document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
`
`State of California
`County of
`
`Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me
`'
`fig?
`‘
`on this 5 z
`by
`Date
`5 2,}
`‘é
`7,; /,
`(1)
`iiéiszaéti
`
`day o
`
`ax
`
`
`
`(and (2)
`
`).
`
`Name{s) of Signer(s)
`
` proved to me ort the basis of satisfactory evidence
`?ATR§(‘.iiA Abiiitfi RUSSELL
`
`Ccmméssicn # 1989595
`to be the pers§n(s) who ‘appeared/bflefore me.
`
`
`Notary Pubttc — Catétotnéa
`Santa Cm: Ceunty
`.,x A
`T he Cmm Extras Sets 24; 2st%
`
`
`
`
` .- ai.eW25él-%’:{:w§:.M
`
`gig
`Signature of Notary Public
`
`Signature,‘
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`
`Seal
`
`Place Notary Seal Above
`
`OPTIONAL
`
`Though this section is optional, completing this information can deter alteration of the document or
`fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
`~>
`
`Description of Attached Docunn/gent
`
`sgf it “W Document Date:
`5‘
`Title or Type of Document:
`Number of Pages: m_____ Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
`_K262&3{Tx;)fj2;i€i3{Xl1sfi;%;Z<;§.X”;<§,Z%§;*i3é,‘éX\,@
` *“,;‘4’e‘<i,f2<i“?s3iZ$"»71<,‘<5<~’»J‘-is‘, “’ ‘
`
`I
`
`,:_
`
`,
`
`
`
`@2014 National Notary Association ' www.NationalNotary.org - 1—800—US NOTARY (1-800—876—6827)
`
`Item #5910
`
`

`
`Atty Docket No. WHAT‐001‐00US 
` 
`
`
` 
` 
`
` Inter Partes Review of  
`U.S. Patent No. 8,332,475 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
`
`  
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of 
`the  attached  PETITIONER’S  MOTION  FOR  PRO  HAC  VICE  ADMISSION  (Mark  R. 
`Weinstein) and related documents, are being served via Federal Express on the 
`18th  day  of  March,  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  
` 
`
` 
`BROWDY AND NEIMARK, PLLC 
`1625 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 
`Washington, DC 20006 
` 
` 
`DATED:  March 18, 2015 
`
`Gregory E. Stuhlman
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200 
`Wilmington, DE 19801 
`
`/ Heidi L. Keefe / 
`Heidi L. Keefe      
`Reg. No. 40,673   
`
` 
`
`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 
`  
`
` 
`
`115053629 v1  
`
`  
`
`1 
`
`(1) 
`
`the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of 
`record with the USPTO, and 
`(2)   upon counsel of record for the Patent Owner in the litigation 
`pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of 
`Delaware entitled TriPlay, Inc. et al. v. WhatsApp Inc., Case No. 
`1:13‐cv‐01703‐LPS (D. Del.):