`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 33
`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
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
