`
`________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`(FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOVATIVE COMMUNCATIONS
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MICHAEL C. NEWMAN UNDER 37 C.F.R § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Board’s “Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response,”
`
`entered April 16, 2013 (Paper No. 3), which authorized the parties to file motions
`
`for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner requests that
`
`the Board admit Michael C. Newman pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`Pursuant to 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 and to any other conditions as the
`
`Board may impose. For example, where the lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who is not a registered
`
`practitioner may be granted 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).
`
`The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Michael C. Newman in
`
`Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Newman Decl.”;
`
`Exhibit 2050), establish good cause to admit Mr. Newman pro hac vice in this
`
`1
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`Lead counsel William A. Meunier is a registered practitioner and is
`
`experienced in proceedings before the USPTO.
`
`Mr. Newman is an experienced litigating attorney. He has been a patent
`
`litigation attorney for nine years, and is currently a Partner at Mintz Levin Cohn
`
`Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC. (Newman Decl. at ¶ 1.) Mr. Newman is a member
`
`in good standing of the Massachusetts State Bar, with no suspensions or
`
`disbarments from practice, nor any application for admission to practice denied,
`
`nor any sanctions or contempt citations, and is admitted to practice in the United
`
`States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts, the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Id. at ¶¶ 2-5.) His mailing address is at One
`
`Financial Center, Boston MA, 02111. His email address is
`
`mcnewman@mintz.com, and his direct dial is 617-348-1626.
`
`Mr. Newman is particularly familiar with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding based on his work as trial counsel in a number of cases involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704. He has been counsel to Patent Owner with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,108,704 in the following matters: Certain Point-to-Point Network
`
`Communication Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-892
`
`(U.S.I.T.C., filed Aug. 1, 2013); Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc,
`
`VIZIO, Inc., Toshiba Corp (E.D. Va., consolidated case No. 1:13-cv-00934-AJT-
`
`IDD); Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Blackberry, ZTE, and
`
`Huawei Technologies (E.D. Tex., consolidated Case No. 13-cv-604) Straight Path
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`IP Grp. Inc. v. Straight and Netflix, Inc. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 14-cv-405);
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. (E.D. Va. Case No. 15-cv-00682,
`
`case transferred from N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:14-cv-4561-EJD); Straight Path IP
`
`Group, Inc. v Sipnet EU S.R.O. (Fed. Cir. Case No. 2015-1212). (Newman Decl.
`
`at 10.) Mr. Newman was the lead associate and/or partner in each of these cases,
`
`and was involved in most all aspects of the litigations, including the issue of
`
`validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,704. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Newman has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board's Rules for Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R,
`
`and he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and to disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`11.19(a). (Id. at ¶ 7.)
`
`Mr. Newman applied and was admitted to appear pro hac vice in the
`
`following proceeding during the past three (3) years: Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`LTD et.al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc. (IPR2014-01366, IPR2014-01367 &
`
`IPR2014-01368); LG Electronics, Inc., et al. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc.
`
`(IPR2015-00196, IPR2015-00198 & IPR2015-00209). (Id. at ¶ 8.)
`
`For these reasons Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board admit
`
`Michael C. Newman pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`/William Meunier/
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1845
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent No. 6,108,704
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Michael Newman Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 and supporting Exhibits
`
`are being served by electronic mail on the following counsel for the Petitioner:
`
`Pavel I. Pogodin
`TRANSPACIFIC LAW GROUP
`530 Lytton Avenue, 2nd Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`pavel@transpacificlaw.com
`
`Sanjay Prasad
`PRASAD IP, PC
`1768 Miramonte Ave. #4845
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`sanjay@prasadip.com
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2016
`
`
`/William A. Meunier/
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
`and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 348-1615
`Facsimile: (617) 542-2241
`StraightPathIPRs@mintz.com
`
`5