`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`
`Entered: December 17, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent of MICHAEL ARNOUSE
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Lead Administrative Patent Judge,1 and
`JONI Y. CHANG, and JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION - Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 Judge Tierney serves as lead judge of the Board’s Trial Section.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) filed a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. Steven D. Moore. (Paper 12.) The motion is unopposed. For the
`
`reasons provided below, the 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. In authorizing Motorola’s
`
`motion for pro hac vice, the Board also required 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 6.)2
`
`In its motion, Motorola states that there is good cause for Mr. Moore’s
`
`admission because: (1) Mr. Moore is an experienced litigator and has been
`
`involved in numerous patent infringement litigations; and (2) as lead counsel for
`
`Motorola in the co-pending litigation between Motorola and the Patent Owner,
`
`Mr. Moore has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding. In support of the motion, Mr. Moore attests to these facts in his
`
`affidavit with sufficient explanations.3 Additionally, the motion and Mr. Moore’s
`
`affidavit comply with the requirements set forth in the Board’s order authorizing
`
`Motorola’s motion for pro hac vice admission.
`
`2 Paper 6 is labeled Document 7 in PRPS.
`3 Mr. Moore’s affidavit and biography should have been filed as separate exhibits
`and labeled properly. 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`Based on the record, we find that Mr. Moore has sufficient legal and
`
`technical qualifications to represent Motorola in the instant proceeding. We
`
`further recognize that there is a need for Motorola to have its lead counsel in the
`
`co-pending litigation involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, Motorola has
`
`established that there is good cause for Mr. Moore’s admission.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Motorola’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Steven Moore for the instant proceeding is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Motorola is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner as lead counsel for the instant proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Moore is to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`
`Part 42 of the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ko-Fang Chang
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`kchang@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Lawrence H, Meier, esq.
`DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
`lmeier@drm.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`