`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.S,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., AND
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00640
`Patent 5,659,891
`____________________
`_
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5, page 2) (“Notice”), 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
`
`Representative Order states that the motion must “[c]ontain a statement of facts
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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);
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following statement of facts, as supported by the Declaration of
`
`Korula Cherian (Exhibit 1020) 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, Nima Hefazi, is a registered practitioner (Reg.
`
`No. 63,658).
`
`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. 1020) at ¶ 6.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 5,590,403 and
`
`5,915,210. These proceedings have been designated IPR2017-
`
`00642 and IPR2017-00637, respectively. Otherwise, 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. 5,556,891
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“The ’891 Patent”). Id. at ¶ 10. Mr. Cherian is lead counsel
`
`for Brocade and Ruckus in co-pending litigation involving the
`
`’891 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 lead 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.
`
`
`
`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, Nima Hefazi, is a registered practitioner. Based on the
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 lead counsel for Brocade and Ruckus in
`
`their current district court litigation (Mobile Telecommunications Technologies,
`
`LLC v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., 1:16-cv-697-LPS-CJB (Del.);
`
`Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., 1:16-cv-
`
`699-LPS-CJB (Del.)). Id. at 9-10. This proceeding involves the same patent –
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,659,891 – 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 ’891 Patent being challenged in this
`
`proceeding. Id. In view of Mr. Cherian’s substantial knowledge of the precise
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Dated: June 12, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`BY: /Nima Hefazi/
`
`Nima Hefazi, Reg. No. 63,658
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 400
`Newport Beach, CA
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. sections 42.6 and 42.105 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 1020 are
`
`being served via electronic service to:
`
`John R. Kasha (Lead Counsel)
`Kelly L. Kasha (Back-up Counsel)
`KASHA LAW LLC
`Address: 14532 Dufief Mill Road
`North Potomac MD 20878
`
`
`/s/ Susan Langworthy
`
` Susan Langworthy
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`