`Entered: February 9, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARISTA NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00303 (Patent 6,377,577 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00306 (Patent 7,023,853 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00308 (Patent 7,162,537 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00309 (Patent 7,224,668 B1)1
`___________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MIRIAM L. QUINN,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and PETER P. CHEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Matthew Powers, Paul Ehrlich, and William Nelson
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all four identified cases.
`We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`Citations are to papers filed in IPR2016-00303.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00303, IPR2016-00306, IPR2016-00308, IPR2016-00309
`Patents 6,377,577 B1, 7,023,853 B1, 7,162,537 B1, 7,224,668 B1
`
`
`On January 31, 2017, Petitioner filed Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Messrs. Matthew Powers, Paul Ehrlich, and William Nelson
`(“Motions,” Papers 35, 36, and 37) and an accompanying affidavits in
`support thereof (Exs. 1036–38, respectively). Patent Owner does not oppose
`these motions. Motions 2.
`Upon consideration of the papers presented, Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently that Messrs. Powers, Ehrlich, and Nelson have
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this
`proceeding. See IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, “Order – Authorizing Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission.” In light of the foregoing, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for Messrs. Powers, Ehrlich, and
`Nelson to participate in this proceeding as backup counsel. Messrs. Powers,
`Ehrlich, and Nelson may only be designated as backup counsel.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Messrs. Powers, Ehrlich, and Nelson are granted; Messrs.
`Powers, Ehrlich, and Nelson are authorized to represent Petitioner only as
`back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Messrs. Powers, Ehrlich, and Nelson 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 Title 37, Code of Federal
`Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Messrs. Powers, Ehrlich, and Nelson are
`to be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00303, IPR2016-00306, IPR2016-00308, IPR2016-00309
`Patents 6,377,577 B1, 7,023,853 B1, 7,162,537 B1, 7,224,668 B1
`
`§ 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37
`C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Lauren Degnan
`Alex Gelberg
`Michael McKeon
`Jason Wolff
`Linhong Zhang
`Adam Shartzer
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`IPR40963-0003IP4@fr.com
`IPR40963-0004IP4@fr.com
`IPR40963-0006IP3@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`gelberg@fr.com
`mckeon@fr.com
`wolff@fr.com
`shartzer@fr.com
`IPR40963-0005IP1@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Jon E. Wright
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Lori A. Gordon
`Lestin L. Kenton, Jr.
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`lkenton-PTAB@skgf.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
