`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`Entered: April 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`Case IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Michael H. Jones
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all four cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each of the four cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Incorporated and LG Electronics U.S.A,
`Incorporated (collectively, “LG”), filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Michael H. Jones in each proceeding identified above.
`Paper 18 (“Mot.”).2 Patent Owner, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology
`Korea Corporation, does not oppose. For the reasons provided below, LG’s
`Motions are granted.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 4, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order –
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`In these proceedings, lead counsel for LG, Mr. Brian A. Tollefson, is
`a registered practitioner. Mot. 3; Paper 1, 4–5. LG asserts that there is good
`cause for us to recognize Mr. Jones pro hac vice in these proceedings. Mot.
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to the papers filed in Case IPR2015-
`001642.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`2–4. LG’s assertions in this regard are supported by the Declaration of Mr.
`Jones. Paper 19.3
`Mr. Jones declares that he is a member in good standing of the Bars of
`the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia, and that he is admitted to
`practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`Paper 19 ¶ 2. Mr. Jones also declares that he is familiar with the subject
`matter at issue in these proceedings, particularly because he represents LG in
`at least two related district court cases where the involved patents have been
`asserted. Paper 19 ¶ 10. In addition, the facts alleged in Mr. Jones’s
`Declaration comply with all the requirements set forth in our representative
`Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See Mot. 2–4; Paper
`19 ¶¶ 1, 3–9.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Jones has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent LG, and that there is a need for LG to
`have its counsel from the related district court cases involved in these
`proceedings. Accordingly, LG has established that there is good cause for
`the pro hac vice admission of Mr. Jones in these proceedings.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`3 The Declaration of Mr. Jones was filed as a paper in this case, rather than
`as a separate exhibit. The parties are cautioned that, going forward, such
`evidence should be filed as an exhibit. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) (“Evidence
`consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All
`evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`Mr. Michael H. Jones are GRANTED. Mr. Jones is authorized to represent
`LG as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jones shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), and the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jones shall be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the Office’s
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Jason M. Shapiro
`Michael V. Battaglia
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan A. Roberts
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5