UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AQ TEXTILES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ARUN AGARWAL,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Patent 9,493,892
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPEAR PRO
`HAC VICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`BY JAMAL M. EDWARDS PC AND AJAY K. MAGO
`
`Respondent respectfully requests that the Board recognize Messrs.
`
`Jamal M. Edwards, P.C., and Ajay K. Mago as counsel pro hac vice during
`
`this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`TIME FOR FILING
`
`This Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed no sooner than
`
`twenty-one (21) days after service of the petition as required by the Order re
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION AND TIME FOR
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AQ TEXTILES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ARUN AGARWAL,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Patent 9,493,892
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO APPEAR PRO
`HAC VICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`BY JAMAL M. EDWARDS PC AND AJAY K. MAGO
`
`Respondent respectfully requests that the Board recognize Messrs.
`
`Jamal M. Edwards, P.C., and Ajay K. Mago as counsel pro hac vice during
`
`this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`TIME FOR FILING
`
`This Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed no sooner than
`
`twenty-one (21) days after service of the petition as required by the Order re
`
`NOTICE OF FILING DATE ACCORDED TO PETITION AND TIME FOR
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`FILING PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE, entered August 8,
`
`2017 (“the Initial Order”). (Paper #3).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`As required by the Initial Order, the following statement of facts shows
`
`that there is good cause for the Board to recognize each of Messrs. Edwards
`
`and Mago pro hac vice. Respondent addresses each attorney below, in turn.
`
`A. Mr. Edwards
`Mr. Edwards is a law partner of lead counsel and has an extensive
`
`professional working relationship with lead counsel spanning almost two (2)
`
`decades and involving multiple firms, including the undersigned law firm and
`
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP, where he was previously a partner. Edwards is an
`
`experienced litigation attorney, and has been involved in numerous litigations
`
`involving patent infringement in District Courts across the country. He has
`
`experience in jury and bench patent trials, Markman hearings, and Federal
`
`Circuit oral arguments in patent infringement litigation matters, including
`
`cases dating as early as 2004. Early in his career, Mr. Edwards served as a
`
`judicial law clerk in a federal district court that hears a high volume of patent
`
`cases, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`also to the now Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Fourth Circuit, where he is a member in good standing of the appellate bar and
`
`successful advocate recognized by a favorable and unanimous published
`
`decision. He is also an experienced advocate and member of the bar of the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, since at least 2007.
`
`The parties to the proceeding have a broader and more extensive dispute
`
`amongst them, which has been pending since at least as early as 2015. The
`
`litigation dispute began when Respondent filed a complaint naming Petitioner
`
`and others as Respondents before the United States International Trade
`
`Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-976 (hereafter, the “ITC
`
`Investigation”), alleging the unlawful importation into the United States, the
`
`sale for importation into the United States and/or the sale within the United
`
`States after importation, of woven textile fabrics and products containing the
`
`same that infringe United States Patent No. 9,131,790 (“the ’790 patent”)
`
`and/or falsely advertise the thread count of such products. Respondent
`
`thereafter filed a civil action against Petitioner in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, styled as AAVN,
`
`Inc. v. AQ Textiles, LLC; Case No. 2:15-cv-01527, alleging infringement of
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`the ‘790 Patent. (the “Texas Patent Case”). These actions collectively shall be
`
`referred to as the “’790 Patent Litigation”).
`
`The ’790 Patent Litigation was settled pursuant to a Confidential
`
`Settlement Agreement and a General Exclusion Order entered by the ITC.
`
`Recent conduct by Petitioner has raised questions regarding whether Petitioner
`
`has violated the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. At issue in the
`
`analysis of this issue are Petitioner’s post-settlement conduct, including its
`
`commercial and intellectual property activities, many of which involve or
`
`relate to the subject matter of this Petition. Respondent has asked Mr.
`
`Edwards to assist and strategically coordinate a resolution of the multiple
`
`issues and disputes between the parties, thereby requiring him to become
`
`intimately familiar with Respondent’s technology, products and processes,
`
`including several of Respondent’s patents, including U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,493,892 (’892 Patent), at issue in this proceeding. As such, Mr. Edwards
`
`has reviewed the ’892 patent, the instant petition, and has been actively
`
`working on matters involving several related patents, which Respondent is
`
`evaluating and anticipates may become involved in the broader dispute
`
`between the parties.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Specifically, Mr. Edwards has reviewed prior art references and claim
`
`charts for invalidity contentions, and has been involved in forming
`
`preliminary claim construction positions and other strategic matters, all of
`
`which are relied upon by Respondent in preparing its responsive activities
`
`regarding the Petition and other matters germane to the dispute between the
`
`parties. These activities center on the same subject matter at issue in the
`
`instant petition. Respondent has, accordingly, expended significant financial
`
`resources in the matters, including with Mr. Edwards as counsel, and
`
`Respondent wishes to continue using him as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`B. Mr. Mago
`Mr. Mago is also a law partner of lead counsel, and has an extensive
`
`professional working relationship spanning almost fifteen (15) years and
`
`involving multiple firms, including the undersigned law firm and Duane
`
`Morris LLP, where he was previously a partner. Early in his career, Mr. Mago
`
`served as judicial law clerk in the Federal District Court in the Northern
`
`District of Texas. As noted above, the parties are engaged in an on-going
`
`dispute which spans several years and several tribunals. Mr. Mago has
`
`represented Respondent throughout all those proceedings and prior, including
`
`having actively participated in the ITC Investigation and the Texas Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Case, all of which involved the same subject matter as the instant petition.
`
`Mr. Mago remains actively involved with enforcement of the ITC’s General
`
`Exclusion Order.
`
`Mr. Mago is an experienced attorney, and has been involved in
`
`numerous litigations involving patent infringement, particularly on behalf of
`
`Respondent, for whom he serves as the general outside corporate counsel. He
`
`has appeared in litigation in several federal and state courts, including the
`
`Texas Patent Case involving similar subject matter.
`
`Given his long-standing representation of Respondent in patent and
`
`other matters, Mr. Mago has reviewed prior art references and claim charts for
`
`invalidity contentions, and has been involved in forming claim construction
`
`positions and other strategic matters, all of which are relied upon by
`
`Respondent in preparing its response to the Petition and other matters germane
`
`to the dispute between the parties, which all center on the same subject matter
`
`at issue in the instant petition. Respondent has expended significant financial
`
`resources with Mr. Mago as counsel, and Respondent wishes to continue using
`
`him as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Further, counsel for Petitioner does not oppose Messrs. Edwards and
`
`Mago appearing pro hac vice during this proceeding. Therefore, Respondent
`
`respectfully submits that there is good cause for the Board to recognize each
`
`of Messrs. Edwards and Mago as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`III. DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT
`
`This Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is accompanied by
`
`Declarations, by each of Messrs. Edwards and Mago, as required by the Initial
`
`Order.
`
`CONCLUSION
`Respondent respectfully submits that there is good cause for the Board
`
`to recognize each of Messrs. Edwards and Mago as counsel pro hac vice
`
`during this proceeding, and respectfully requests entry of an order recognizing
`
`each of them.
`
`* * *
`
`7
`
`
`
`Dated: September 28, 2017
`
`Case PGR2017-00042
`Respectfully Submitted
`
`Michelle W. Skinner
`Jamal M. Edwards PC (pro hac vice pending)
`Ajay K. Mago
`(pro hac vice pending)
`CULHANE MEADOWS PLLC
`30 S. Wacker Dr., 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`mskinner@culhanemeadows.com
`jedwards@culhanemeadows.com
`amago@culhanemeadows.com
`1-844-CULHANE (285-4263)
`
`Attorneys for Respondent
`
`8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a true copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`FORPRO HAC VICE ADMISSION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 was served
`
`electronically via e-mail on September 28, 2017, in its entirety on the
`
`following:
`
`Dated: September 28, 2017
`
`/s/ Michelle Ware Skinner
`One of the Attorneys for Respondent
`
`Michelle W. Skinner
`Jamal M. Edwards PC (pro hac vice pending)
`Ajay K. Mago
`(pro hac vice pending)
`CULHANE MEADOWS PLLC
`30 S. Wacker Dr., 22nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`mskinner@culhanemeadows.com
`jedwards@culhanemeadows.com
`amago@culhanemeadows.com
`1-844-CULHANE (285-4263)
`
`Attorneys for Respondent
`
`
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
