UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION and XEROX CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case 1PR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`IN SUPPORT OF PRO HAG VICE ADMISSION
`
`RIC 1012
`Ricoh v. MPHJ
`1PR2013-00302
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION and XEROX CORPORATION
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case 1PR2013-00302
`Patent 7,986,426
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`IN SUPPORT OF PRO HAG VICE ADMISSION
`
`RIC 1012
`Ricoh v. MPHJ
`1PR2013-00302
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`CASE IPR2013-00302
`
`1.
`
`I, H. Keeto Sabharwal, am more than twenty-one years of age, am
`
`competent to present this affidavit, and have personal knowledge of the facts set
`
`forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`This affidavit is given in support of the Petitioners Ricoh Americas
`
`Corporation and Xerox Corporation’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`
`3.
`
`I am a Director at the law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein and Fox
`
`P.L.L.C.
`
`4.
`
`I have been a litigating attorney for more than 19 years. I have been
`
`litigating patent cases during that entire time period.
`
`5.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of New York and the
`
`Bar of the District of Columbia. I have never been suspended or disbarred from
`
`practice before any court or administrative body.
`
`6.
`
`I have never been ultimately denied admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body. I was temporarily denied pro hac vice admission
`
`without prejudice by the PTAB in Cases 1PR2012-00022 and 1PR2013-00250 for
`
`failure to fully articulate my familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceedings (where I was not serving as lead trial counsel in the corresponding
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`CASE 1PR2013-00302
`
`litigation).’ After providing additional detail showing that I was familiar with the
`
`subject matter at issue in those proceedings, I was ultimately admittedpro
`
`hac vice
`
`in both cases. See Case 1PR2012-00022, Paper 53; Case 1PR2013-00250, Paper 21.
`
`7.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or
`
`contempt citations on me.
`
`8.
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §S 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 3 7 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`10.
`
`I have applied to appear pro hac vice in four other proceedings before
`
`the Office in the last three years. I was admitted pro hac vice in all four
`
`proceedings: Case 1PR2012-00022, Paper 53; Case 1PR2013-00012, Paper 36; Case
`
`1PR2013-00015, Paper 24; and Case 1PR2013-00250, Paper 21.
`
`’Case 1PR2012-00022 and Case 1PR2013-00250 were parallel cases
`
`concerning a single patent at issue. The cases were later joined by the PTAB in a
`
`single proceeding. See Case 1PR2012-00022, Paper 104.
`
`SM
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`CASE 1PR2013-00302
`
`11.
`
`I have established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding. I have read and understand the pleadings submitted by Ricoh Americas
`
`and Xerox in this proceeding. Through my nearly 20 years of patent litigation
`
`experience, I am very familiar with anticipation and obviousness, the legal theories
`
`advanced in this case.
`
`12.
`
`I have reviewed in detail U.S. Patent No. 7,986,426 ("426 Patent"),
`
`and the Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of the ’426 Patent (Case
`
`1PR2013-00302, Paper 8). I have also reviewed documents from other proceedings
`
`concerning the ’426 Patent, including the now-terminated district court litigation
`
`between Engineering & Inspection Services, LLC v. IntPar, LLC
`
`et al., the ongoing
`
`litigation filed by the Vermont Attorney General against MIPHJ Technologies
`
`Investments, LLC ("MPHJ"), the Assurance of Discontinuance between the
`
`Minnesota Attorney General and MPHJ, and the Assurance of Discontinuance
`
`between the New York Attorney General and MPHJ.
`
`13.
`
`I have engaged in hours of strategic and substantive discussions
`
`regarding this proceeding with Michael D. Specht, who is the lead counsel for
`
`Ricoh Americas Corporation and Xerox Corporation in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`CASE 1PR2013-00302
`
`14.
`
`I am the primary counsel to Ricoh Americas Corporation and Xerox
`
`Corporation with respect to this dispute and controversy, and serve as the principle
`
`advisor to them for this matter.
`
`15.
`
`In my 19 years of litigation experience, I have litigated many patent
`
`cases in the fields of electrical engineering and computer science, involving
`
`complex technologies in the consumer & business electronics industry. For
`
`example, I have litigated or am currently litigating cases involving:
`
`telecommunications technology, telecommunications expense management
`
`software, Power over Ethernet technology, Radio-frequency Identification
`
`("RFID") devices, touch screen technology, and mobile computing.
`
`16.
`
`Through my many years of litigating patent cases in the fields of
`
`electrical engineering and computer science, I am familiar with network scanning
`
`technology, which is the predominant technology in this proceeding.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF H. KEETO SABHARWAL
`CASE 1PR2013-00302
`
`17.
`
`Therefore, I have an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that IPR counsel for Patent Owner has no objection to
`
`Petitioner’s motion for my pro hac vice admission in this proceeding.
`
`Sworn to and subscribed before me
`this 15th day of January, 2014.
`
`14.to Sabharwal
`
`Notary Public (cid:9)
`
`1799117_i
`
`TIANA D. GLASCOE
`t4OY PUBLIC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`My Commission Expires June 30, 201
`
`
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
