`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: May 24, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SKKY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00088 (Patent 9,124,718 B2)1
`Case IPR2017-00089 (Patent 9,118,693 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00092 (Patent 9,124,717 B2)
`Case IPR2017-00097 (Patent 8,892,465 B2)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision pertains to each of these cases. Therefore, we exercise our
`discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case. The parties are
`not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00088 (Patent 9,124,718 B2)
`IPR2017-00089 (Patent 9,118,693 B2)
`IPR2017-00092 (Patent 9,124,717 B2)
`IPR2017-00097 (Patent 8,892,465 B2)
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Mark R.
`Weinstein and Yuan Liang in the above-listed proceedings. Papers 11, 12
`(collectively, “Motions”).2 For the following reasons, the Motions are
`granted.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause,
`subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered practitioner,
`back-up counsel may be permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing
`that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id. For the
`reasons set forth in the Motions and the accompanying declarations of
`Mr. Weinstein (Ex. 1063) and Mr. Liang (Ex. 1065), we find that good cause
`exists to admit Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Liang pro hac vice in the above-listed
`proceedings.
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motions are granted, and Mark R. Weinstein and
`Yuan Liang are authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in the
`above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings; and
`
`
`2 This Decision cites to the record of IPR2017-00088.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00088 (Patent 9,124,718 B2)
`IPR2017-00089 (Patent 9,118,693 B2)
`IPR2017-00092 (Patent 9,124,717 B2)
`IPR2017-00097 (Patent 8,892,465 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Liang are to
`comply with the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of
`Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, and are subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and to the USPTO’s disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00088 (Patent 9,124,718 B2)
`IPR2017-00089 (Patent 9,118,693 B2)
`IPR2017-00092 (Patent 9,124,717 B2)
`IPR2017-00097 (Patent 8,892,465 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Andrew C. Mace
`COOLEY LLP
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`Andrew J. Kabat
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`rschultz@robinskaplan.com
`akabat@robinskaplan.com
`
`4
`
`
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
