`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 41
`Entered: August 18, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`HTC AMERICA, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)2
`____________
`
`Before JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Denying Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Justin Chen
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`1 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., were
`terminated from this proceeding. See, e.g., IPR2015-01500, Paper 28.
`2 This Order addresses issues pertaining to all three cases. Therefore, we exercise
`our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`
`As explained in the Notice According Filing Date (Paper 3), any motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission “shall be filed in accordance with the ‘Order – Authorizing
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission’ in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7.” That
`
`Order states that a motion for pro hac vice must be accompanied by an affidavit or
`
`declaration attesting that “The individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set for in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).” Unified Patents Inc. v. Parallel Iron,
`
`LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, 3 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013).
`
`In our Order Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Mr. Michael McBride and Mr. Amir Alavi, we observed that the
`
`declarations of Messrs. Alavi and McBride referred to the wrong rules, and we
`
`encouraged Patent Owner to refer to the correct rules in its next pro hac vice
`
`motion. Paper 20, 2 n.2. The Declaration of Mr. Justin Chen does not, however,
`
`refer to the correct rules. Ex. 2011 ¶ 7 (“I will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. 11.19(a)).
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s unopposed motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. Justin Chen is denied without prejudice.3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 We now caution both parties that further failures to comply with our orders shall
`result in the denial of motions such as this, with prejudice. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.12(a)(1), (b)(2).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`Samsung-PUMA-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Rajeev Gupta
`Darren M. Jiron
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`LGE_Finnegan_PUMAIPR@finnegan.com
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Stephen M. Everett
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`stephen.everett@sidley.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Masood Anjom
`Scott Clark
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`3
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
