`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: April 17, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
`IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00370 (Patent 7,487,544 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00371 (Patent 7,979,907 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00372 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00374 (Patent 7,913,306 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00375 (Patent 8,074,115 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00377 (Patent 8,601,322 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00378 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION1
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one identical decision in each case
`using this caption style. Unless otherwise authorized, the parties are not
`permitted to use this style.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00370 (Patent 7,487,544 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00371 (Patent 7,979,907 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00372 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00374 (Patent 7,913,306 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00375 (Patent 8,074,115 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00377 (Patent 8,601,322 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00378 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed an amended motion2 for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Jason G. Sheasby in each of the above-listed proceedings.3 Paper 9
`
`(“Motion” or “Mot.”). Symantec Corporation (“Petitioner”) does not oppose
`
`the Motion. Mot. 5. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause,
`
`subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered practitioner,
`
`back-up counsel 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.
`
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner in these proceedings is Hong Zhong, a
`
`registered practitioner. Mot. 3. In support of the Motion, Patent Owner
`
`submits the Declaration of Jason G. Sheasby. Ex. 2001. Mr. Sheasby
`
`declares that he is a member in good standing of the California State Bar.
`
`Id. ¶ 5. Mr. Sheasby further declares that he has not been suspended or
`
`disbarred from, and has not been denied admission to, practice before any
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s original motion for pro hac vice admission of Jason S.
`Sheasby (Paper 8) is denied as moot.
`3 This decision cites to the record of the IPR2015-00370, unless otherwise
`noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00370 (Patent 7,487,544 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00371 (Patent 7,979,907 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00372 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00374 (Patent 7,913,306 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00375 (Patent 8,074,115 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00377 (Patent 8,601,322 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00378 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`
`court or administrative body. Id. ¶¶ 5, 6. Mr. Sheasby declares that he is
`
`familiar with the subject matter at issue in these proceedings based on his
`
`role as lead counsel for Patent Owner in a related district court lawsuit: The
`
`Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York v. Symantec Corp.,
`
`No. 3:13-cv-808 (E.D. VA.). Ex. 2001 ¶ 11. Mr. Sheasby further states that
`
`(1) he has read and will comply with the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials
`
`set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, and (2) he will be subject to the USPTO Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct4 set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. ¶¶ 8, 9. Based on
`
`the foregoing, we find that good cause exists to admit Mr. Sheasby pro hac
`
`vice in these proceedings.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Mr. Sheasby is authorized
`
`to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed
`
`proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`
`represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings; and
`
`
`4 Although Mr. Sheasby refers to the “USPTO Code of Professional
`Responsibility,” Mr. Sheasby states that he will be subject to 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq., which sets forth the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00370 (Patent 7,487,544 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00371 (Patent 7,979,907 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00372 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00374 (Patent 7,913,306 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00375 (Patent 8,074,115 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00377 (Patent 8,601,322 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00378 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sheasby is to comply with the
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`
`Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and is
`
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00370 (Patent 7,487,544 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00371 (Patent 7,979,907 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00372 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00374 (Patent 7,913,306 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00375 (Patent 8,074,115 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00377 (Patent 8,601,322 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00378 (Patent 7,448,084 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David D. Schumann
`Brian M. Hoffman
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`dschumann-ptab@fenwick.com
`bhoffman-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Hong Zhong
`Jason G. Sheasby
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`hzhong@irell.com
`jsheasby@irell.com
`
`
`5