`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.S,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
` COMPANY, HP INC., ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
` AND ARRIS GROUP, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`_____________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`KORULA T. CHERIAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 U.S.C. § 42.10(C), and as authorized in the Board’s Notice of
`
`Filing Date in this proceeding (Paper 9 issued January 30, 2017), Petitioners
`
`Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. (“Brocade”) and Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
`
`(“Ruckus”, collectively “Petitioners”), by and through their attorneys, respectfully
`
`requests that the Board admit Korula T. Cherian pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`Section 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`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. For example, where the lead
`counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by
`counsel who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon a
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`proceeding.
`
`Further, the Notice requires that a motion for pro hac vice admission be filed
`
`in accordance with the “ORDER-AUTHORIZING MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ADMISSION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10” in Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron,
`
`LLC, Case No. IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Representative Order”).
`
` The
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`Representative Order states that the motion must “[c]ontain a statement of facts
`
`showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during
`
`the proceeding” and “[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the
`
`individual seeking to appear attesting to the following:”
`
`i.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`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.;
`
`vi.
`
`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);
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following statement of facts, as supported by the Declaration of
`
`Korula Cherian (Exhibit 1019) submitted herewith, Petitioners submit that a
`
`showing of good cause has been made and respectfully request the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Korula T. Cherian in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel, Gabrielle Higgins, is a registered practitioner
`
`(Reg. No. 38,916).
`
`2.
`
`Backup counsel, Ronald R. Wielkopolski (Reg. No. 69,359)
`
`and Don F. Livornese (Reg. No. 32,040), are registered
`
`practitioners.
`
`3. Mr. Cherian is a partner at the law firm of RuyakCherian LLP.
`
`He is an experienced litigating attorney with over twenty-five
`
`years of experience in litigating patent cases. Declaration of
`
`Korula T. Cherian (“Declaration”, Ex. 1019) at ¶ 6.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`
`4. Mr. Cherian is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
`
`California.
`
`5. Mr. Cherian has never been suspended or disbarred from
`
`practice before any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 3.
`
`6.
`
`No application filed by Mr. Cherian for admission to practice
`
`before any court or administrative body has ever been denied.
`
`Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`7.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have been imposed against
`
`Mr. Cherian by any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 5.
`
`8. Mr. Cherian has read and agrees to comply with the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice
`
`for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R. Id. at ¶ 7.
`
`9. Mr. Cherian understands that he will be subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id.
`
`10. Mr. Cherian is concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission in
`
`the inter partes challenges to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,659,891 and
`
`5,590,403. These proceedings have been designated IPR2017-
`
`00640 and IPR2017-00642, respectively. Otherwise,
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`
`Mr. Cherian has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other
`
`proceedings before the Office in the last three (3) years. Id. at ¶
`
`8.
`
`11. Mr. Cherian has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 5,915,210
`
`(“the 210 Patent”). Id. at ¶ 10. Mr. Cherian is counsel for
`
`Brocade and Ruckus in co-pending litigation involving the '210
`
`Patent and plays a central role in the litigation. Id. at ¶ 9. As a
`
`result, Mr. Cherian has acquired substantial understanding of
`
`the underlying legal and technological issues at stake in this
`
`proceeding. Id. at ¶ 10. Brocade and Ruckus have expended
`
`significant time and resources with Mr. Cherian as counsel in
`
`the co-pending litigation, and wish to continue using Mr.
`
`Cherian as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`12. This motion was filed no sooner than 21 days after service of
`
`the Petition in this proceeding, which occurred on January 10,
`
`2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`KORULA T. CHERIAN
`
`
`
`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. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(c). Lead counsel, Gabrielle Higgins, is a registered practitioner. Based on
`
`the facts contained herein, as supported by the Declaration, good cause exists to
`
`admit Mr. Cherian pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`As supported by his Declaration, Mr. Cherian is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney with over twenty-five (25) years of patent litigation experience.
`
`Declaration at 6. Mr. Cherian also has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding as he is counsel for Brocade and Ruckus in their
`
`current district court litigation In re: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`Case No. 1:16-md-2722 (D.Del.). This proceeding involves the same patent – U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,915,210 – that is at issue in the pending litigation (among others). Id.
`
`at 9.
`
`As counsel for Brocade and Ruckus, Mr. Cherian has been actively involved
`
`in all aspects of its district court litigation, including the development of its
`
`invalidity positions regarding the claims of the '210 Patent being challenged in this
`
`proceeding. Id. In view of Mr. Cherian’s substantial knowledge of the precise
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this
`
`proceeding and its district court proceeding, Brocade and Ruckus have a
`
`substantial need for Mr. Cherian’s pro hac vice admission and his involvement in
`
`this proceeding. Id. at 10. Though Mr. Cherian has been involved throughout this
`
`IPR in an advisory capacity, and has stayed up-to-date regarding the documents
`
`filed and actions taken, there is a need for Mr. Cherian to be added as backup
`
`counsel to this IPR. Id. Mr. Cherian’s pro hac vice admission will enable Brocade
`
`and Ruckus to avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of work between this
`
`proceeding and its district court proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012), at 48661 (Office’s comment on final rule discussing concerns about
`
`efficiency and costs where an entity has already engaged counsel for parallel
`
`district court litigation).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`admit Mr. Cherian pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`Dated: June 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Ronald R Wielkopolski
`Ronald R. Wielkopolski
`Reg. No. 69,359
`RUYAK CHERIAN LLP
`1776 Eye St. NW, Suite 750
`Washington, DC 20006
`ronw@ruyakcherian.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.; and
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00637
`Patent 5,915,210
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 that a copy of the
`
`foregoing MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF KORULA T.
`
`CHERIAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and Exhibit 1019 are being served via
`
`electronic service to:
`
`John R. Kasha (Lead Counsel)
`Kelly L. Kasha (Back-up Counsel)
`KASHA LAW LLP
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`
`
`By:/s/ Ronald R Wielkopolski
`Ronald R. Wielkopolski
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
