`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`Entered: February 22, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753)
`IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464)
`IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)1
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN,
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Justin Chen
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all five cases. We,
`therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each
`case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed
`
`a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Justin Chen in each of the
`
`proceedings identified above. Paper 23 (“Mot.”).2 Petitioner, Apple Inc.,
`
`does not oppose these Motions. Mot. 2. For the reasons provided below,
`
`Patent Owner’s Motions are granted.
`
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The
`
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`
`appear. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative
`
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`
`In these proceedings, lead counsel for Patent Owner, Mr. Masood
`
`Anjom, is a registered practitioner. Mot. 3. Patent Owner asserts that there
`
`is good cause for us to recognize Mr. Chen pro hac vice in these
`
`proceedings. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner’s assertions in this regard are
`
`supported by a Declaration of Mr. Chen. Ex. 2008.
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to the papers filed in Case IPR2016-
`01114. Similar papers were filed in Cases IPR2016-01116, IPR2016-01121,
`IPR2016-01134, and IPR2016-01135.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`Mr. Chen declares that he is a member in good standing of the State
`
`
`
`Bar of Texas, and that he is admitted to practice before at least two district
`
`courts. Ex. 2008 ¶ 2. Mr. Chen also declares that he is familiar with the
`
`subject matter at issue in these proceedings, particularly because he
`
`represents Patent Owner in the related district court case. Id. ¶ 9. Moreover,
`
`the facts alleged in Mr. Chen’s Declaration comply with the requirements set
`
`forth in our representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 1–9; Mot. 3–5.
`
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Chen has sufficient legal and
`
`technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established that there is good cause for the
`
`pro hac vice admission of Mr. Chen in these proceedings.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`III. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`of Mr. Justin Chen are GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chen is authorized to represent
`
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chen shall comply with the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), and the
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`
`of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chen shall be subject to the Office’s
`
`
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the Office’s
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01114 (Patent 7,777,753); IPR2016-01118 (Patent 7,321,368)
`IPR2016-01121 (Patent 5,960,464); IPR2016-01134 (Patent 7,542,045)
`IPR2016-01135 (Patent 5,812,789)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`David W. O’Brien
`Michael S. Parsons
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`David L. Alberti
`Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP
`dalberti@feinday.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Massod Anjom
`Scott Clark
`Amir Alavi
`Michael McBride
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.
`manjom@azalaw.com
`sclark@azalaw.com
`aalavi@azalaw.com
`mmcbride@azalaw.com
`
`Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`