`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`MITEK SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01742
`Patent No. 10,013,605
`___________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`OF DAVID EISEMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, Petitioner Mitek Systems, Inc. (“Mitek”)
`
`requests that the Board admit David Eiseman pro hac vice in this inter partes review
`
`proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts Showing Good Cause for the Board to Recognize
`Counsel Pro Hac Vice During the Proceeding
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro
`
`hac vice during a proceeding, subject to the conditions set forth therein, and any
`
`others that the Board may impose. Petitioner sets forth the following facts in support
`
`of this Motion:
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel for Mitek in this proceeding, Brian E. Mack, is a
`
`registered practitioner.
`
`2. Mr. Eiseman is an experienced litigating attorney and has established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Accompanying this Motion is the Declaration of David Eiseman in
`
`Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Eiseman Decl.”). In
`
`his declaration, Mr. Eiseman attests, among other things, that he is a
`
`member in good standing of the State Bar of California. (Eiseman Decl.
`
`¶ 3.) Mr. Eiseman further attests that he has been admitted to practice
`
`before at least the Northern District of California, Central District of
`
`California, Eastern District of California, Southern District of
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`California, Eastern District of Texas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Eiseman further attests that he has been in private practice in the
`
`field of litigation since 1985, with the majority of that time focused
`
`specifically on patent litigation. (Id. ¶ 2.) In addition, Mr. Eiseman
`
`attests that his familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding is demonstrated by his review of the patent-at-issue and the
`
`cited prior art.
`
`3.
`
`In his declaration, Mr. Eiseman attests to each of the required items set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c). (Id. ¶¶ 2-9.)
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Mitek respectfully requests that the Board admit
`
`Mr. Eiseman pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Brian E. Mack
`Brian E. Mack
`(Reg. No. 57189)
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, Floor 22
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 875-6600
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Mitek Systems,
`Inc.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on October 26,
`
`
`
`2020, a complete and entire copy of this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`
`David Eiseman was provided by email to the Patent Owner by serving
`
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trowles@irell.com
`bredjaian@irell.com
`lglasser@irell.com
`jsheasby@irell.com
`USAA-IPRs@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Mack
`Brian E. Mack (Reg. No. 57189)
`Attorney Lead Counsel
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
`Sullivan LLP
`
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Mitek Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
