`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 32
`Filed: January 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. and APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)1
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Scott M. Border
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`Scott M. Border, which was accompanied by Exhibit 1028, a declaration of Scott
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062 and IPR2016-00063, has been
`joined as a Petitioner in the instant proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`
`
`M. Border. Paper 31 (“Mot.” Or “Motion”).2 Patent Owner allegedly has
`indicated that “VirnetX opposes the pro hac vice motion to the extent that it
`continues to oppose Apple’s involvement in IPR2015-01046 and IPR2015-01047.”
`Mot. 2.
`Pursuant to 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. In its notice authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission, the Board requires a statement of facts showing there is
`good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s Motion and supporting evidence, we determine
`that Petitioner has demonstrated that Scott M. Border has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in the above-identified proceedings.
`We also recognize that there is a need for Petitioner to have Mr. Border involved in
`these proceedings.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established that there is good cause for admitting
`Scott M. Border.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Scott M. Border is granted; Mr. Border is authorized to represent Petitioner Apple
`Inc. only as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`
`
`2 Petitioner filed a similar Motions in both of the captioned proceedings. For
`brevity, we refer here to the papers in IPR2015-01046.
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01046 (Patent 6,502,135 B1)
`IPR2015-01047 (Patent 7,490,151 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Scott M. Border is to comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth
`in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Border is to be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and that USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be filed in IPR2015-
`01046 and IPR2015-01047.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Abraham Kasdan
`Wiggin and Dana LLP
`akasdan@wiggin.com
`
`James T. Bailey
`jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Thomas A. Broughan, III
`Sidley Austin LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`tbroughan@sidley.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com