`Entered: April 5, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Personal Web Technologies, LLC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00083 (JYC)
`Patent 6,415,280
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`EMC Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Cynthia Vreeland
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`
`Petitioners EMC Corporation and VMware, Inc. (collectively “EMC”) filed
`
`a motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Cynthia Vreeland. (Paper 16.) The
`
`motion is unopposed. For the reasons provided below, EMC’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 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 7,
`
`referencing the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`IPR2013-00010, at 3-4.)
`
`In its motion, EMC asserts that there is good cause for Ms. Vreeland’s pro
`
`hac vice admission because: (1) Ms. Vreeland is an experienced litigator and has
`
`been involved in numerous patent infringement litigations; and (2) as counsel for
`
`EMC in the co-pending litigation which involves the same patent being challenged
`
`in this proceeding, Ms. Vreeland has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in the proceeding. In support of the motion, Ms. Vreeland attests to
`
`these facts in her declaration with sufficient explanations. (Ex. 1038.)
`
`Additionally, the motion and Ms. Vreeland’s declaration comply with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Board’s order authorizing EMC’s motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`
`Based on the record, we find that Ms. Vreeland has sufficient legal and
`
`technical qualifications to represent EMC in the instant proceeding. We further
`
`recognize that there is a need for EMC to have its counsel in the co-pending
`
`litigation involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, EMC has established that
`
`there is good cause for Ms. Vreeland’s admission.
`
`EMC filed its motion prior to the publication of the Office’s Final Rule
`
`adopting new Rules of Professional Conduct. See Changes to Representation of
`
`Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed.
`
`Reg. 20180 (Apr. 30, 2013). The Final Rule also removes part 10 of the C.F.R.,
`
`and the changes set forth in the Final Rule including the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct take effect on May 3, 2013. Id. at 20180-81. Therefore,
`
`Ms. Vreeland is to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct when
`
`the rules are in effect.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that EMC’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Vreeland
`
`for the instant proceeding is granted; Ms. Vreeland is authorized to represent EMC
`
`as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that EMC is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Vreeland 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
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Vreeland is to be subject to the Office’s
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the Office’s Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et. seq. or the USPTO
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00083
`Patent 6,415,280
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq., whichever
`
`in effect.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Peter M. Dichiara, Esq.
`David L. Cavanaugh, Esq.
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`peter.dichiara@wilmerhale.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa, Esq.
`Updeep. S. Gill, Esq.
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
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
