`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 23
`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