`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 14
`
` Entered: February 2, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01879
`Patent 8,492,933
`____________
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Brett J. Williamson and
`Charles Quinn
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`On September 30, 2015, Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Brett J. Williamson. Paper 6. In the motion,
`Petitioner states that there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01879
`Patent 8,492,933
`
`Williamson pro hac vice during this proceeding because he is familiar with
`related pending litigation between the parties, and because he is familiar
`with the subject matter of this proceeding. Id. The motion is supported by
`Mr. Williamson’s Declaration attesting that he is a member in good standing
`of the Bar of California, as well as several federal courts. Ex. 1020. Mr.
`Williamson’s Declaration asserts that he agrees to “be subject to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).” Id. ¶ 12. Patent
`Owner has not filed any opposition.
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Mr.
`Williamson has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`Petitioner in this proceeding.
`On October 1, 2015, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Charles Quinn.
`Paper 8. In the motion, Patent Owner states that there is good cause for the
`Board to recognize Mr. Quinn pro hac vice during this proceeding because
`he is an experienced litigator and has familiarity with the subject matter at
`issue in this proceeding. Id. The motion is supported by Mr. Quinn’s
`Declaration attesting that he is a member in good standing of the Bars of
`New Jersey and New York, as well as several federal courts. Paper 10, ¶ 2.
`Mr. Quinn’s Declaration asserts that he agrees to “be subject to the United
`States Patent and Trademark Office Code of Professional Conduct set forth
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01879
`Patent 8,492,933
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §§ [11.101] et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.19(a).” Id. ¶ 8. Petitioner has not filed any opposition.
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`Mr. Quinn has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Brett J. Williamson is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Charles Quinn is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Williamson and Mr. Quinn are 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to
`the Office’s Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner and Patent Owner are to
`continue to have registered practitioners represent them as lead counsel in
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01879
`Patent 8,492,933
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`Cameron Westin
`Scot Rives
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`vzhou@omm.com
`cwestin@omm.com
`srives@omm.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Harris Wolin
`GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
`hwolin@grahamcurtin.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
