`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 24
`Entered: April 29, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`VMWARE, INC., INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
`CORPORATION
`AND
`ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
`INSTITUTE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR 2014-00949
`Case IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
` DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Leeron Kalay
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00949
`Case IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`
`On April 22, 2015, Petitioner (“VMware”) filed a Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission of Leeron Kalay. Paper 21 (“Mot.”). The motion indicates
`
`that it is unopposed by Patent Owner. Mot. 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 VMware is Katherine Kelly
`
`Lutton, a registered practitioner. VMware’s motion relies on a declaration
`
`of Leeron Kalay (Ex. 1015). Mr. Kalay declares that he is a member in good
`
`standing of the Bar of California. Ex. 1015 ¶ 1. Mr. Kalay also declares that
`
`he has never been suspended, disbarred, sanctioned or cited for contempt by
`
`any court or administrative body, and that he has never had an application
`
`for admission to practice denied by any court or administrative body. Id. ¶¶
`
`2-4. Mr. Kalay further declares that he is familiar with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding based on his work as counsel for VMware in the
`
`related district court litigation between the parties involving Patent
`
`6,978,346: Safe Storage LLC v. VMware, Inc., Case No. 1-13-cv-00928-
`
`GMS (D. Del.). Id. ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`Mr. Kalay further states (1) that he has read and will comply with the
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`
`of Federal Regulations, as well as the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and
`
`(2) that he agrees to be subject to the “United States Patent and Trademark
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`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).” Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, we determine that VMware has established
`
`good cause for admission, pro hac vice, of Mr. Leeron Kalay.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that VMware’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Leeron Kalay is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kalay is authorized to represent
`
`Petitioner only as backup counsel;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kalay 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
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00901
`Patent 6,978,346 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Katherine Kelly Lutton
`Timothy W. Riffe
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`lutton@fr.com
`IPR27450-0011IP1@fr.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Derek Meeker
`RENAISSANCE IP LAW GROUP LLP
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`derek.meeker@renaissanceiplaw.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
