`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 25, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VALENCELL, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00315 Patent 8,929,965 B2
`Case IPR2017-00317 Patent 8,989,830 B2
`Case IPR2017-00318 Patent 8,886,269 B2
`Case IPR2017-00319 Patent 8,923,941 B2
`Case IPR2017-00321 Patent 8,923,941 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of T. William Kennedy
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion to issue
`one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties are not authorized to use a
`multiple case caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Valencell, Inc. (“Patent Owner”), filed a Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. T. William Kennedy in each proceeding
`identified above. Paper 14 (“Mot.”).2 Petitioner did not file any
`oppositions. 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. Justin B.
`Kimble, is a registered practitioner. Mot. 1; Paper 5, 1. Patent Owner
`asserts that there is good cause for us to recognize Mr. Kennedy pro hac vice
`in these proceedings. Mot. 1–2. Patent Owner’s assertions in this regard are
`supported by the Declaration of Mr. Kennedy. Ex. 2008.
`
`
`2 We refer to the papers and exhibits filed in Case IPR2017-00315 as
`representative.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`Mr. Kennedy declares that he is a member in good standing of the
`State Bar of Texas. Ex. 2008 ¶ 2. Mr. Kennedy also declares that he is
`familiar with the subject matter at issue in each of these proceedings,
`particularly because he has been involved in numerous other matters
`involving technology related to the patents in dispute here. Id. ¶ 9. In
`addition, the facts alleged in Mr. Kennedy’s Declaration comply with the
`requirements set forth in our representative Order authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 2–7; Mot. 1–4.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Kennedy 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. Kennedy in these proceedings.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Mr. T. William Kennedy are GRANTED. Mr. Kennedy is authorized to
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in each of these proceedings
`only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in each of these
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kennedy shall 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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Kennedy is 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00315 (Patent 8,929,965 B2)
`IPR2017-00317 (Patent 8,989,830 B2)
`IPR2017-00318 (Patent 8,886,269 B2)
`IPR2017-00319 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`IPR2017-00321 (Patent 8,923,941 B2)
`PETITIONER
`
`Michelle K. Holoubek
`Michael D. Specht
`Mark J. Consilvio
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX
`holoubek-PTAB@skgf.com
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`mconsilvio-PTAB@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Nicholas C Kliewer
`Jonathan H. Rastegar
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`JKimble-IPR@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`jrastegar@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`