throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 28
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket