throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 24
`
`Entered: March 21, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MICHAEL ARNOUSE
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Authorizing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`On March 19, 2013, a telephone conference call was held including the
`
`following individuals:
`(1) Thomas D. Kohler, counsel for the patent owner;
`(2) Mr. Michael Arnouse;
`(3) Ko-Fang Chang and Steven D. Moore, counsel for Motorola Mobility
`LLC; and
`(4) Michael P. Tierney, Joni Y. Chang, and Jennifer S. Bisk,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`Mr. Kohler initiated the conference call to seek authorization to file a motion
`to withdraw as counsel. Mr. Kohler indicated that Mr. Arnouse would like to
`represent himself as a pro se patent owner. Mr. Kohler requested mandatory
`withdrawal under 37 C.F.R. § 10.40(b)(4). Mr. Kohler alleged that Mr. Arnouse
`discharged him as counsel, and that he could not continue his representation of the
`patent owner in this proceeding. Mr. Arnouse did not raise an objection to Mr.
`Kohler’s continuing his representation of the patent owner until such time as the
`Board authorizes Mr. Kohler’s withdrawal as counsel.
`The Board explained that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e), counsel may not
`withdraw from a proceeding before the Board unless the Board authorizes such
`withdrawal. In that regard, 37 C.F.R. § 10.40(a) provides that “a practitioner shall
`not withdraw from employment until the practitioner has taken reasonable steps to
`avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of the client, including giving due notice
`to his or her client, [and] allowing time for employment of another practitioner.”
`In deciding a motion to withdraw as counsel, the Board will consider the effect of
`granting such a motion “on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the
`efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely
`complete proceedings.” See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`The Board raised several concerns regarding Mr. Kohler’s request to
`withdraw as counsel, specifically the burden on the patent owner to proceed in this
`trial without counsel and what reasonable steps have been taken by counsel to
`avoid foreseeable prejudice to the patent owner’s rights. Moreover, based on this
`record, it is uncertain whether Arnouse Digital Devices Corp. (“ADD”) is
`effectively the patent owner.
`On June 16, 2011, ADD, as exclusive licensee of the ’484 patent, filed a law
`suit against Motorola Mobility, Inc. for patent infringement.1 (Ex. 2003, 1.)
`According to the first amended complaint filed on October 5, 2011, “ADD’s
`exclusive license runs for the full term of the ’484 patent and includes all
`substantial rights in such patent, including the explicit right to sue and recover
`damages for infringement of the ’484 patent and to otherwise seek enforcement of
`the rights it owns under the ’484 patent.” (Ex. 1007, 2:11.)
`If ADD is effectively the patent owner, Mr. Arnouse may not represent
`himself as a pro se patent owner in this instant trial. See Talasila, Inc. v. United
`States, 240 F.3d 1064, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Even if Mr. Arnouse is permitted to
`represent himself as a pro se patent owner, it is unclear whether counsel has
`informed Mr. Arnouse of the possible consequences of the withdrawal without
`replacement counsel. Therefore, any motion to withdraw as counsel filed in this
`trial must also include: (1) a statement by counsel of what information has been
`given to Mr. Arnouse regarding the possible consequences of the withdrawal of
`counsel without replacement counsel; and (2) a statement signed by Mr. Arnouse
`that he understood those possible consequences.
`
`
`
`1 Arnouse Digital Devices Corp. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-00155-cr
`(D. Vt.).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that counsel for the patent owner is authorized to file a motion
`to withdraw as counsel; the motion is due on March 26, 2013;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel must
`identify which identity is the patent owner, the basis of the withdrawal, and the
`steps that have been taken by counsel to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the patent
`owner’s rights; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to withdraw as counsel must
`include: (1) a statement by counsel of what information has been given to Mr.
`Arnouse regarding the possible consequences of the withdrawal of counsel without
`replacement counsel; and (2) a statement signed by Mr. Arnouse that he
`understood those possible consequences.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ko-Fang Chang,
`Steven D. Moore,
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`kchang@kilpatricktownsend.com
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Lawrence H. Meier,
`Thomas D. Kohler,
`Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
`lmeier@drm.com
`tkohler@drm.com
`
`
`
`4

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