`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: April 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Cases
`CBM2014-00102, CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)1
`CBM2014-00106, CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00108, CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00112, CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of James R. Batchelder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00102, CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00106, CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00108, CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00112, CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. James R. Batchelder. Paper 31.2 Smartflash LLC (“Patent Owner”) did
`not file an opposition to the motion. For the reasons provided below,
`Petitioner’s motion is granted.
`As set forth in 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. For example,
`where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered
`practitioner 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.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board
`also requires 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 this proceeding. Paper 3, 2 (referencing the
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-
`00639, Paper 73 (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice admission)).
`In its motion, Petitioner asserts that there is good cause for Mr.
`Batchelder’ pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Batchelder is an
`experienced litigation attorney and has extensive experience litigating patent
`
`2 Citations are to CBM2014-00102 unless otherwise noted. Equivalent
`papers were filed in the other proceedings.
`3 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_trials.jsp,
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices,” “Other Representative
`Orders and Decisions”). Supersedes IPR2013-00010, “Order – Authorizing
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission,” Paper 8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00102, CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00106, CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00108, CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00112, CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`infringement cases in many different District Courts; and (2) Mr. Batchelder
`is familiar with the patents-at-issue in these proceedings and has been
`representing Petitioner against Patent Owner as lead counsel in pending
`District Court litigation. Paper 31, 2–3. In support of the motion, Mr.
`Batchelder attests to these facts in his declaration with sufficient
`explanations. Paper 31, Declaration of James R. Batchelder In Support of
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, 1–3. Additionally, the motion and Mr.
`Batchelder’s declaration comply with the requirements set forth in the
`Board’s order authorizing Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission.
`Based on the record, we find that Mr. Batchelder has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in the instant proceeding.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established that there is good cause for Mr.
`Batchelder’s admission. Mr. Batchelder will be permitted to appear pro hac
`vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Batchelder are granted; Mr. Batchelder is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Batchelder is to comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the C.F.R., and to be subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00102, CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00106, CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00108, CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00112, CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00102, CBM2015-00015 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00106, CBM2015-00016 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00108, CBM2015-00017 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00112, CBM2015-00018 (Patent 7,942,317 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`
`5
`
`