`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MARK D. SELWYN
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board (“Board”) enter an order granting the pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mark D. Selwyn as back-up counsel for Apple in Case IPR2017-00210. Apple has
`
`conferred with counsel for Patent Owner, who does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. APPLICABLE RULE
`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 and to any other conditions as the
`
`Board may impose.” “[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.”
`
`The PTAB set forth requirements for filing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission in Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639,
`
`Paper 7 (“Order – Authorizing Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission – 37 C.F.R.
`
`§42.10”) (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013). A motion seeking pro hac vice must be filed no
`
`sooner than twenty-one (21) days after service of the petition, “must contain a
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding [,]” and must be accompanied by a declaration
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`or affidavit of the individual seeking pro hac vice admission.” Id. at 2-3. The
`
`affidavit or declaration must attest to: (1) membership in good standing of the Bar
`
`of at least one State or the District of Columbia; (2) no suspensions or disbarments
`
`from any practice before any court or administrative body; (3) no application for
`
`admission to practice before any court or administrative body ever denied; (4) no
`
`sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or administrative body; (5)
`
`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 37 C.F.R.; (6) the individual will be 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); (7) all other proceedings before the Office for which the
`
`individual has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and (8)
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`
`III. FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE BOARD TO RECOGNIZE
`COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE DURING THE PROCEEDING
`On November 15, 2016, Petitioner filed three inter partes review petitions in
`
`IPR2017-00210, -00211, and -0219 directed to U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710 (“’710
`
`patent”). Patent Owner was served on the same day. Petitioner’s lead counsel,
`
`Richard Goldenberg, is a registered practitioner (Registration No. 38,095). Mark
`
`D. Selwyn, a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, seeks pro hac
`
`vice admission in this proceeding. Accompanying this motion as Exhibit 1028 is
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`the Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac
`
`Vice (“Selwyn Decl.”).
`
`Mr. Selwyn is a member of good standing of the State Bar of California, the Bar
`
`of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the New York State Bar. See Selwyn
`
`Decl. ¶ 2 (Ex. 1028). He has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body, and has never been denied admission to
`
`practice before any court or administrative body. See Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (Ex.
`
`1028). No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or contempt
`
`citations on Mr. Selwyn. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 7 (Ex. 1028).
`
`Mr. Selwyn 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 37 C.F.R.
`
`See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 8 (Ex. 1028). Mr. Selwyn understands that he will be 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). See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 9
`
`(Ex. 1028).
`
`Mr. Selwyn has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any proceeding before
`
`the Board within the past three years. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 10 (Ex. 1028).
`
`As his accompanying declaration demonstrates, Mr. Selwyn has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Mr.
`
`Selwyn is an experienced patent litigator with more than 20 years of experience.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 2 (Ex. 1028). Mr. Selwyn has reviewed the ’710 patent and its
`
`file history, as well as the Petition, Institution Decision, and the exhibits in this
`
`proceeding. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 11 (Ex. 1028). Mr. Selwyn has been involved in
`
`numerous patent litigations and has litigated matters that concerned PTO rules and
`
`regulations. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 4 (Ex. 1028). Furthermore, Mr. Selwyn
`
`represents the defendants, including Apple, in The California Institute of
`
`Technology v. Broadcom Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-3714-GW-AGRx (“Caltech
`
`litigation”), one of the Related Matters identified in Apple’s Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,116,7101. See Selwyn Decl. ¶ 12 (Ex. 1028).
`
`Through those litigations, Mr. Selwyn developed extensive experience with the
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding. For example, he was involved in
`
`drafting briefing regarding claim construction for the ’710 patent in the Caltech
`
`litigation.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Mark D. Selwyn pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2017-00210, Paper 5.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`____________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 27, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing materials:
`
`• Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mark D.
`Selwyn
`• Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List
`• Exhibit 1028 Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`to be served via electronic mail on the following correspondents of record as listed
`
`in Patent Owners’ Mandatory Notices:
`
`Michael Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Matthew Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Richard Torczon (rtorczon@wsgr.com)
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com)
`Todd M. Briggs (toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com)
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`__________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`IPR2017-00210
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent 7,116,710
`Replacement copy of Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular
`Turbocodes,” Proc. 37th Allerton Conf. on Comm., Control and
`Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on or before March 20,
`2000
`Replacement copy of D. Divsalar, H. Jin, and R. J. McEliece,
`“Coding theorems for "turbo-like" codes,” Proc. 36th Allerton
`Conf. on Comm., Control and Computing, Allerton, Illinois, pp.
`201-10, March, 1999
`Luby, M. et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved
`Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” STOC ’98, pp. 249-59, published
`in 1998
`Pfister et al., “The Serial Concatenation of Rate-1 Codes Through
`Uniform Random Interleavers” (Exhibit 1 to the Siegel
`Declaration)
`Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (“Davis Declaration”)
`Gallager, R., Low-Density Parity-Check Codes, Monograph,
`M.I.T. Press, 1963
`Berrou et al., “Near Shannon Limit Error-Correcting Coding and
`Decoding: Turbo Codes," ICC ’93, Technical Program, Conference
`Record 1064, Geneva 1993
`MacKay, D. J. C, and Neal, R. M. “Near Shannon Limit
`Performance of Low Density Parity Check Codes,” Electronics
`Letters, vol. 32, pp. 1645-46, 1996
`Benedetto, S. et al., Serial Concatenation of Block and
`Convolutional Codes, 32.10 Electronics Letters 887-8, 1996
`Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ’97, 1997
`Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh Concerning the “Proceedings,
`36th Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and
`Computing” Reference
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Frey, B. J. and MacKay, D. J. C., “Irregular Turbo-Like Codes”
`presented at the 1999 Allerton Conference on Communications,
`Control, and Computing.
`Prosecution History of the ’710 Patent, Response Dated May 5,
`2005
`Table of Contents of Proceedings of the 37th Allerton Conference
`on Communication, Control and Computing from September 22-
`24, 1999
`Joint Claim Construction Statement (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245, Dkt.
`No. 47)
`Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245)
`Aamod Khandekar, “Graph-based Codes and Iterative Decoding,”
`Thesis submitted June 10, 2002
`Richardson, Shokrollahi, and Urbanke, “Design of Provably Good
`Low-Density Parity Check Codes”
`Replacement copy of the Declaration of Paul H. Siegel
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/205,095
`Mitzenmacher, M. “Studying balanced allocations with differential
`equations,” Combinatorics, Probability & Computing 8.5, pp. 473-
`482, September 1999
`Barg et al., “Linear-time Binary Codes Correcting Localized
`Erasures,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45.7, pp.
`2545-2550, November 1999
`Shokrollahi, “New Sequences of Linear Time Erasure Codes
`Approaching the Channel Capacity,” Applied Algebra, Algebraic
`Algorithms and Error-Correcting Codes, pp. 65-76, 1999
`Declaration Of Richard Goldenberg In Support Of Unopposed
`Motions To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(c)
`Declaration Of Jonathan Barbee In Support Of Unopposed
`Motions To Submit Replacement Exhibits Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §
`42.104(c)
`Declaration of James M. Dowd in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`9
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00210
`U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710
`Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`