`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Ashok Ramani, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby attest to the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of California, as well as
`
`the US. District Court for the Northern District of California, US. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California, US. District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`California, the US. District Court for the Southern District of California, the US.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Ninth Circuit Court of
`
`Appeals.
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied.
`
`4.
`
`No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`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 37 C.F.R.
`
`89647701
`
`Page 1 of 4
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1031
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`
`
`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ l 1.10], et seq., and disciplinaryjurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 11.19(a).
`
`7.
`
`I have not applied to appear pro hac vice in any proceedings before
`
`the Office in the last three (3) years.
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigation attorney, with experience with complex
`
`litigation in both state and federal court.
`
`I am familiar with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding, including the prior art on which Petitioners rely in this
`
`request and US. Patent No. 6,009,469 (“the ’469 Patent”). I also participated in
`
`the drafting and revision of the Petition already filed in this proceeding. I have
`
`reviewed the pertinent issues of claim construction that have beenbriefed in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`9.
`
`I represent Hulu, LLC as an intervenor in the civil action Straight
`
`Path [F Group, Inc. v. VIZIO. Inc, et a[., No. 1:13-cv—00934 (E.D.V.A. 2013) in V
`
`which the ’469 Patent has been asserted.
`
`I also served as counsel for Petitioner
`
`Toshiba and third-party Netflix, Inc. in an International Trade Commission action
`
`involving the same patent, Certain Point—to—Point Network Communication
`
`Devices and Products Containing Same, NO. 337—TA—892 (U.S.I.T.C. 2013).
`
`//
`
`//
`
`Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`633 Battery Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel:
`415—391—5400
`
`Fax: 415-397-7188
`
`Email: aramani@kvn.com
`
` < Ramanl
`
`Keker & Van Nest LLP
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 16‘h
`day of January, 2015 by ASHOK RAMANT,
`proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
`evidence to be the person who appeared before
`me.
`'
`”
`ii
`'7
`A
`Sigma-ail {WWW UM M4-
`
`‘
`
`Signature of Notary Public
`
`) )
`
`State of California
`
`City & County of San Francisco)
`
`r‘“ ' ROSEANN CIRELLII
`
`,’ ‘-
`'-
`COMM.#2056597
`3
`'. Mwa’
`
`
`
`Affidavit of Ashok Ramani in Support of
`Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Document Date: January 16, 2015
`
`Page 4 of 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
