`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: January 6, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00452
`Patent 6,323,853 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert J. Kent
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00452
`Patent 6,323,853 B1
`
`Petitioners (“Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC”) filed a
`
`Motion for pro hac vice admission of Robert J. Kent.1 Paper 20. The
`
`motion indicates that it is unopposed by Patent Owner. Id. at 2.
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding
`
`upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). If 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.” Id.
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioners is Mathew A. Smith, a
`
`registered practitioner. Petitioners’ Motion relies on a Declaration of Robert
`
`J. Kent (Ex. 1015). Mr. Kent declares that he is a member in good standing
`
`of the Bar of the State of California. Id. ¶ 4. Mr. Kent also declares that he
`
`has never been suspended, disbarred, sanctioned or cited for contempt by
`
`any court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 5. Additionally, Mr. Kent declares
`
`that he has never had an application for admission to practice denied by any
`
`court or administrative body. Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Kent further declares that he is
`
`familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding based on having
`
`read the challenged patent and the references asserted by Petitioners, as well
`
`as familiarity with the contents of the Petition in this proceeding. Id. ¶¶ 10–
`
`12.
`
`Mr. Kent further states that (1) he has read and will comply with the
`
`
`1 The caption of the Motion identifies Google Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC,
`and Apple Inc. as Petitioners. No other paper filed by the parties lists Apple
`Inc. as a Petitioner. Unless Petitioners inform us otherwise, we will assume
`that a typographical error caused the inclusion of Apple Inc. in the list of
`Petitioners in the Motion.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00452
`Patent 6,323,853 B1
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of the Code of
`
`Federal Regulations, and (2) that he agrees to be subject to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 11.19(a). Id. ¶¶ 7–8.
`
`Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioners have
`
`established good cause for admission, pro hac vice, of Mr. Robert J. Kent.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioners’ Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Robert J. Kent is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kent is authorized to represent
`
`Petitioners only as backup counsel; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kent is subject to the USPTO’s
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00452
`Patent 6,323,853 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Robert M. Asher
`Bruce D. Sunstein
`SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`bsunstein@sunsteinlaw.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
