`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 13
` Entered: May 17, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Morgan Chu and Talin Gordnia
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`Petitioner filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Morgan
`Chu (Paper 10) and Ms. Talin Gordnia (Paper 11) on May 9, 2016.
`Petitioner represents that Patent Owner does not oppose the motions. Paper
`10, 3; Paper 11, 3.1 Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Chu is granted. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s motion for pro
`hac vice admission of Ms. Gordnia is denied without prejudice.
`In support of its motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Gordnia,
`Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Talin Gordnia (Exhibit 1014). Paper
`11, 1. The document filed as Exhibit 1014 is not the Declaration of Talin
`Gordnia, however, but instead is a copy of Petitioner’s motion. See Exhibit
`1014. Consequently, Petitioner’s motion was not accompanied by an
`affidavit or declaration of Ms. Gordnia, as required by the Notice
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See Paper 3, 2 (citing
`Order—Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission in Case IPR2013-
`00639, Paper 7 (“A motion for pro hac vice admission must . . . [b]e
`accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear . . . .”)). Petitioner is authorized to file, if it wishes, a revised motion
`for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Gordnia, accompanied by the required
`declaration.
`
`
`1 Petitioner states that “Petitioner has confirmed with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner does not oppose the present motion.” Paper 10, 3 (emphasis
`added); see also Paper 11, 3 (same). We recognize that this is a
`typographical error, and that it is Patent Owner that does not oppose
`Petitioner’s motion.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Ms. Talin Gordnia is denied without prejudice;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a revised
`motion for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Gordnia, accompanied by a
`declaration from Ms. Gordnia attesting to the items set forth in Unified
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Morgan Chu is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chu is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chu 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chu is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01764
`Patent RE 40,264 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`Michael R. Fleming
`Samuel Lu
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`LammFlammIPR@irell.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
