Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 12
`Entered: April 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 12
`Entered: April 22, 2015
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and Quantum Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“Quantum”) move for the admission pro hac vice of attorney Clement S.
`
`Roberts in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (“Motion”). Paper 11 (filed
`
`Apr. 3, 2015). Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc. has not opposed the
`
`Motion. The Motion is granted for the reasons set forth below.
`
`As set forth in 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. For example,
`
`where the 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.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c).
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioners is David L. McCombs, a registered
`
`practitioner. In support of the Motion, Petitioners submit the Affidavit of
`
`Clement S. Roberts. Ex. 1013. The Motion and the Affidavit set forth the
`
`following relevant facts (Paper 11, 1–2; Ex. 1013, 1–3):
`
`(1) Mr. Roberts is a member in good standing of the Bar of at least
`
`one State (California), as well as the Bar of the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. Court of Appeals for
`
`the Second Circuit, as well as several U.S. District Courts.
`
`(2) Mr. Roberts has not been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body.
`
`(3) Mr. Roberts has not had any application for admission to
`
`practice before any court or administrative body denied.
`
`(4) Mr. Roberts has not been subject to any sanctions or contempt
`
`citations imposed by any court or administrative body.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(5) Mr. Roberts has been involved in five other proceedings before
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Office for which he has applied to appear pro hac vice in
`
`the last three years:
`
`(a) Netflix, Inc., v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00252;
`
`(b) Netflix, Inc., v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00267;
`
`(c) Netflix, Inc., v. OpenTV, Inc., Case IPR2014-00269;
`
`(d) Cisco Sys., Inc., v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., Case IPR2014-
`01226; and
`
`(e) Cisco Sys., Inc., v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., Case IPR2014-
`01463.
`
`(6) Mr. Roberts is an experienced litigating attorney, including
`
`significant experience in patent litigation.
`
`(7) Mr. Roberts has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. He is Quantum’s trial
`
`counsel in a co-pending district court case, which involves the
`
`same patent at issue in this proceeding. Specifically, as trial
`
`counsel, Mr. Roberts is familiar with the prior art asserted by
`
`Petitioners in this proceeding and claim construction issues
`
`relevant to this proceeding.
`
`In addition to the above facts, Mr. Roberts confirms that he has
`
`reviewed and will comply with the Office Trial Practice Guide and the
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of the Code of
`
`Federal Regulations. Ex. 1013, 1. Further, Mr. Roberts affirms that he
`
`agrees to be subject to the USPTO 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. at 2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Upon consideration, Petitioners have shown good cause for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Roberts’s admission pro hac vice to appear in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Clement
`
`S. Roberts is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Roberts is authorized to appear as
`
`back-up counsel for Petitioners in this proceeding, but he may not act as lead
`
`counsel;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as
`
`lead counsel throughout the proceeding;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Roberts is to comply with the Office
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`
`Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Roberts is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR 2014-01544
`Patent 7,051,147 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David L. McCombs
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Scott T. Jarratt
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`scott.jarratt.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Russell Wong
`James Hall
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`crossroadsipr@counselip.com
`
`Steven R. Sprinkle
`John L. Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
