IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,434,020
`
`In re Application of: Marthieu Kennedy
`Martyn
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01984
`
`Filed: August 27, 2003
`
`Issued: April 30, 2013
`
`Assignee: Core Wireless Licensing
`S.a.r.l.
`
`Title: COMPUTING DEVICE WITH
`IMPROVED USER INTERFACE FOR
`APPLICATIONS
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION
`FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF NICHOLAS A. BROWN UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that this Motion is being electronically filed with the USPTO on this 25th day
`of April, 2016.
`
`/Eric J. Maiers/
`By:
` Eric J. Maiers
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`In Support of the Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,434,020
`
`In re Application of: Marthieu Kennedy
`Martyn
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01984
`
`Filed: August 27, 2003
`
`Issued: April 30, 2013
`
`Assignee: Core Wireless Licensing
`S.a.r.l.
`
`Title: COMPUTING DEVICE WITH
`IMPROVED USER INTERFACE FOR
`APPLICATIONS
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION
`FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF NICHOLAS A. BROWN UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Certificate of Filing: I hereby certify that this Motion is being electronically filed with the USPTO on this 25th day
`of April, 2016.
`
`/Eric J. Maiers/
`By:
` Eric J. Maiers
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”), by
`
`and through its attorneys, respectfully requests that the Board admit Nicholas A.
`
`Brown pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`Section 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`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 and to any other conditions as the
`Board may impose. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel
`who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Further, the Board requires that a motion for pro hac vice admission be filed
`
`in accordance with the “ORDER-AUTHORIZING MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ADMISSION – 37 C.F.R. §42.10” in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of
`
`Michael Arnouse, Case No. IPR2013-00010 (“Representative Order”). The
`
`Representative Order states that the motion must “[c]ontain a statement of facts
`
`showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during
`
`the proceeding,” and “[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the
`
`individual seeking to appear attesting to the following:”
`
`i.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one
`
`State or the District of Columbia;
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`No application for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court
`
`or administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will
`
`comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part
`
`42 of the C.F.R;
`
`vi.
`
`The individual will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`10.20 et seq. 1 and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the
`
`individual has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last
`
`three (3) years; and
`
`
`1 The USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility in 37 C.F.R. § 10.20 et
`seq. was replaced by the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct in 37 C.F.R. §
`11.101 et seq., effective May 3, 2013.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following statement of facts, and supported by the Declaration
`
`of Nicholas A. Brown submitted herewith as Exhibit 1007, LG submits that a
`
`showing of good cause has been made and respectfully requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Nicholas A. Brown in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`LG’s lead counsel, Herbert Finn, is a registered practitioner (Reg. No.
`
`38,139).
`
`2.
`
`LG’s backup counsel, Richard D. Harris, Reg. No. 27,898, Eric J.
`
`Maiers, Reg. No. 59,614, and Askhon Cyrus, Reg. No.69,832 are
`
`registered practitioners.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Brown is a Shareholder at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig,
`
`LLP (“Greenberg”). Mr. Brown joined Greenberg as a Shareholder in
`
`October 2010. (Declaration of Nicholas A. Brown in Support of LG’s
`
`Unopposed Motion for pro hac vice Admission of Nicholas A. Brown
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).)
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Brown is an experienced litigating attorney and has specific
`
`experience in patent law and patent law litigation. Mr. Brown has
`
`represented clients in numerous patent infringement actions across the
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`country. Mr. Brown has litigated matters through trial and appeal.
`
`(Id.)
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Brown is a member in good standing of the California State Bar.
`
`(Id.)
`
`6.
`
`Mr. Brown has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. (Id.)
`
`7.
`
`No application filed by Mr. Brown for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body has ever been denied. (Id.)
`
`8.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have been imposed against Mr.
`
`Brown by any court or administrative body. (Id.)
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Brown has read and agrees to comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`
`part 42 of the C.F.R. (Id.)
`
`10. Mr. Brown understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §11.19(a). (Id.)
`
`11. Mr. Brown is currently or soon will be seeking pro hac vice admission
`
`in the following matters filed by LG: IPR Nos. 2015-01983, 2015-
`
`01984, and 2015-01985. In the past three years, Mr. Brown has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in one other proceeding before the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, IPR2014-00070. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Brown was admitted pro hac vice in that proceeding. (Id.)
`
`12. Mr. Brown has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this, and the other related proceedings noted in Paragraph 11,
`
`supra. Mr. Brown regularly represents LG in matters relating to its
`
`patents. For example, Mr. Brown represented LG in Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 2:14-cv-
`
`911 (lead case) and 2:14-cv-912 (consolidated) (E.D. TEX.), which
`
`involved the same patents at issue in the matters filed by Core
`
`Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Core Wireless”) noted in Paragraph
`
`11, supra. As a result of Mr. Brown’s representation of LG in that
`
`and other matters, Mr. Brown has acquired substantial understanding
`
`of the underlying technological issues at stake in this matter and the
`
`other matters filed by Core Wireless noted in Paragraph 11, supra.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`NICHOLAS A. BROWN
`
`The facts outlined above in the Statement of Facts, and contained in the
`
`Declaration of Nicholas A. Brown, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr.
`
`Brown pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10. LG’s lead and
`
`backup counsel are registered practitioners. Mr. Brown is an experienced litigating
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01984
`
`attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this,
`
`and the other related proceedings noted in Section III., Paragraph 11, supra.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the foregoing, LG Electronics, Inc and LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. respectfully requests that the Board admit Nicholas A.
`
`Brown pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Date: April 25, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Eric J. Maiers/
`By: Herbert H. Finn
`Registration No.: 38,139
`Eric J. Maiers
`Registration No. 59,614
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`77 West Wacker Drive
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`(312) 456-8449
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on the below date, I caused the
`
`foregoing to be served upon the following counsel of record via electronic mail,
`
`pursuant to the parties’ agreement:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W. San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Fax: 408-773-6177
`Email: patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`Date:
`
`April 25, 2016
`
`/Sambath Meas/
`Sambath Meas
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
