`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 21
`Entered: August 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Apple’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Joseph E. Lasher
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310
`
` Petitioner, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Mr. Joseph E. Lasher. Paper 17 (“Mot.”). The Motion is
`
`unopposed. Mot. 2. For the reasons provided below, Apple’s Motion is granted.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The Order authorizing motions for pro
`
`hac vice admission requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us
`
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual
`
`seeking to appear in the instant proceeding. Paper 7, 2.
`
`In the instant proceeding, lead counsel for Apple, Mr. David K.S. Cornwell,
`
`is a registered practitioner. Paper 3, 2. Apple’s Motion indicates that there is good
`
`cause for us to recognize Mr. Lasher pro hac vice during this proceeding, and is
`
`supported by the declaration of Mr. Lasher (Ex. 1034). Mot. 5–7.
`
`In particular, Mr. Lasher declares that he is an experienced patent litigating
`
`attorney and has been involved in at least eight patent infringement actions.
`
`Ex. 1034 ¶ 4. Mr. Lasher also declares that he has established familiarity with the
`
`subject matter at issue in the instant proceeding, as he has been representing Apple
`
`in the related district court litigation that involves the same patent being challenged
`
`in the instant proceeding. Id. at ¶¶ 10–13. Additionally, Mr. Lasher’s declaration
`
`complies with the requirements set forth in the Board’s order authorizing motions
`
`for pro hac vice admission. Id. at ¶¶ 4–13.
`
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Lasher has sufficient legal and
`
`technical qualifications to represent Apple in the instant proceeding. We further
`
`recognize that there is a need for Apple to have its counsel in the co-pending
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310
`
`litigation involved in the instant proceeding. Accordingly, Apple has established
`
`that there is good cause for Mr. Lasher’s admission.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Apple’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Joseph E.
`
`Lasher is granted; Mr. Lasher is authorized to represent Apple as back-up counsel
`
`in the instant proceeding only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Apple is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lasher 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lasher is to be subject to the Office’s
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00596
`Patent 7,802,310
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David K.S. Cornwell
`Mark W. Rygiel
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`davidc-PTAB@skgf.com
`mrygiel-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Updeep S. Gill
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`usg@nixonvan.com
`
`4