`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: May 14, 2024
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC., INSTAGRAM, INC., WHATSAPP LLC,
`META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and GIPHY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00923
`Patent 7,266,682 B2
`____________
`
`Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Ethan Perbohner
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00923
`Patent 7,266,682 B2
`
`
`On May 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro hac vice
`admission of Ethan Perbohner. Paper 31 (“Motion”). Petitioner also
`submitted a Declaration from Ethan Perbohner in support of the Motion.
`Ex. 1030 (“Declaration”). Petitioner attests that Patent Owner does not
`oppose the Motion. Paper 31, 1.
`For the reasons provided below, Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`In accordance with 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. In
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`moving party to provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for
`the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration
`of the individual seeking to appear in the proceeding. See Unified Patents,
`Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7)
`(representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Mr. Perbohner has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding, has
`demonstrated sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the subject
`matter of this proceeding, and meets all other requirements for admission
`pro hac vice. See Ex. 1030. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good
`cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Perbohner. Mr. Perbohner will be
`permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`We note that Petitioner has filed a Power of Attorney including Mr.
`Perbohner in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Paper 33. Petitioner
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00923
`Patent 7,266,682 B2
`
`has also filed a Mandatory Notice identifying Mr. Perbohner as back-up
`counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3). Paper 34.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion (Paper 31) for pro hac vice
`admission of Ethan Perbohner is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Perbohner is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel only in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Perbohner be familiar with the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (84 Fed. Reg.
`64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)), and comply with the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Perbohner is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.2
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`2 In the Declaration, Mr. Perbohner indicates he will be subject to the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility (as
`opposed to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et. seq.). See Ex. 1030 ¶ 11. Mr. Perbohner further indicates he
`will be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.19(e) (as opposed to the disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.19(a)). See id. We excuse these mistakes on this occasion, but remind
`Mr. Perbohner that he shall be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct and the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00923
`Patent 7,266,682 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`W. Baker
`Ellisen Turner
`Jonathan Brit
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`jonathan.brit@kirkland.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christine Lehman
`Philip Eklem
`Michael Matulewicz-Crowley
`Jaime Cardenas-Navia
`REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP
`clehman@reichmanjorgensen.com
`peklem@reichmanjorgensen.com
`mmatulewicz-crowley@reichmanjorgensen.com
`jcardenas-navia@reichmanjorgensen.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`



