`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: September 21, 2015
`
`571-272-7822
`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 IPR2015-00372 (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 IPR2015-00372 (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
`Petitioner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael J.
`Sacksteder in the above-listed proceedings.2 Paper 25 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).
`Patent Owner does not oppose the Motion. Mot. 3. For the following
`reasons, the Motion is granted in IPR2015-00374, IPR2015-00375,
`IPR2015-00377, and IPR2015-00378, and conditionally granted in
`IPR2015-00372.
`
`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. For the reasons set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`declaration of Mr. Sacksteder3 (Ex. 1025), we find that good cause exists to
`admit Mr. Sacksteder pro hac vice in these proceedings. Petitioner,
`however, did not file the accompanying declaration of Mr. Sacksteder as an
`exhibit in IPR2015-00372. Petitioner, therefore, shall file the accompanying
`
`
`2 This decision cites to the record of the IPR2015-00374, unless otherwise
`noted.
`3 Although Mr. Sacksteder refers to the “USPTO Code of Professional
`Responsibility,” Mr. Sacksteder states that he will be subject to 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq., which sets forth the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct.
`
`2
`
`
`
`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)
`
`declaration of Mr. Sacksteder as an exhibit in IPR2015-00372, within five
`(5) business days of this Order.
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted in IPR2015-00374, IPR2015-
`00375, IPR2015-00377, and IPR2015-00378, and conditionally granted in
`IPR2015-00372;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Michael J. Sacksteder is authorized
`to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in IPR2015-00374, IPR2015-
`00375, IPR2015-00377, and IPR2015-00378;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner files the accompanying
`declaration of Mr. Sacksteder as an exhibit in IPR2015-00372, within five
`(5) business days of this Order, Mr. Sacksteder is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel in IPR2015-00372;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sacksteder 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).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`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
`Michael Fleming
`Jason G. Sheasby
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`hzhong@irell.com
`mfleming@irell.com
`jsheasby@irell.com
`
`
`4