`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Entered: October 31, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)1
`
`
`Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, SCOTT A. DANIELS, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER2
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Henning Schmidt
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 The issues are the same in each of the proceedings listed above. We,
`therefore, issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding.
`2 This Order addresses the same or similar issue in the proceedings listed
`above. Therefore, we issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style of filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Henning
`
`Schmidt (Paper 173) and an accompanying declarations in support thereof
`
`(Paper 18) in both of these proceedings. Petitioners did not file any
`
`opposition.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), 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. In authorizing a
`
`motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to
`
`provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the
`
`individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. IPR2013-00639, Paper 7,
`
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission.”
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner is John Kasha, a registered
`
`practitioner. In the Motions, Patent Owner states that there is good cause for
`
`the Board to recognize Henning Schmidt pro hac vice during these
`
`proceedings because Henning Schmidt represents Patent Owner in related
`
`matters. Paper 17, 3–4. The motions further assert that Henning Schmidt
`
`has experience and familiarity with the subject matter of the patents at issue
`
`in these proceedings. Id.
`
`Declarations of Henning Schmidt attesting to, and sufficiently
`
`explaining, the required facts, accompanies the motions. The Declarations
`
`comply with the requirements for pro hac vice admission and establish that
`
`
`3 For the purposes of this Order, IPR2016-00766 is representative and all
`citations are to papers in IPR2016-00766 unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`Henning Schmidt is an experienced attorney with an established familiarity
`
`with the subject matter at issue in these proceedings. See Paper 18. The
`
`Declarations further acknowledge that Henning Schmidt is 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. ¶ 7.
`
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`
`Henning Schmidt has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to
`
`represent Patent Owner in this proceeding. Accordingly, Patent Owner has
`
`established that there is good cause for admitting Henning Schmidt.
`
`Henning Schmidt may only be designated as backup counsel.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s motions are granted. Patent Owner should update the
`
`counsel information in the PTAB E2E filing system.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`of Henning Schmidt is granted in each proceeding, and Henning Schmidt is
`
`authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in these
`
`proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner should continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Henning Schmidt is to comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`and
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`IPR2016-00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Henning Schmidt is subject to the
`
`USPTO’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.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Megan F. Raymond
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`steven.baughman@ropesgray.com
`megan.raymond@ropesgray.com
`
`James M. Heintz
`Brian K. Erickson
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`HPT-MTel-891IPR-DLA@dlapiper.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Howard N. Wisnia
`Pedro F. Suarez
`Brad M. Scheller
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY, AND POPEP, P.C.
`PTOhwisnia@mintz.com
`pfsuarez@mintz.com
`PTOScheller@mintz.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
