`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Apple Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`California Institute of Technology
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MARK D. SELWYN
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c)
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`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 IPR2017-00700. 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
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`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 January 20, 2017, Petitioner filed three inter partes review petitions in
`
`IPR2017-00700, -00701, and -00728 directed to U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (“’032
`
`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
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`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. 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. Selwyn Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (Ex. 1028).
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or contempt citations
`
`on Mr. Selwyn. 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.
`
`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). 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. 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.
`
`Selwyn Decl. ¶ 1 (Ex. 1028). Mr. Selwyn has reviewed the ’032 patent and its file
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`history, as well as the Petition, Institution Decision, and the exhibits in this
`
`proceeding. Selwyn Decl. ¶ 11 (Ex. 1028). Mr. Selwyn has been involved in
`
`numerous patent litigations and has litigated matters that concerned PTO rules and
`
`regulations. 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. 7,421,0321. 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 ’032 patent in the Caltech litigation. Selwyn
`
`Decl. ¶ 4 (Ex. 1028).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Mark D. Selwyn pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`__________________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`1 IPR2017-00700, Paper 5.
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`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)
`
`/Michael Smith/
`
`_______________________
`Michael Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`IPR2017-00700
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Description
`
`D. J. C. MacKay, S. T. Wilson, and M. C. Davey, “Comparison of
`constructions of irregular Gallager codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
`Vol. 47, No. 10, pp. 1449-54, 1999
`
`L. Ping, W. K. Leung, N. Phamdo, “Low Density Parity Check Codes
`with Semi-random Parity Check Matrix.” Electron. Letters, Vol. 35,
`No. 1, pp. 38-39, 1999
`
`1004
`
`Declaration of Professor James Davis, Ph.D. (“Davis Declaration”)
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`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
`
`Benedetto, S. et al., Serial Concatenation of Block and Convolutional
`Codes, 32.10 Electronics Letters 887-8, 1996
`
`1008
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Practical Loss-Resilient Codes,” STOC ’97, 1997
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Luby, M. et al., “Analysis of Low Density Codes and Improved
`Designs Using Irregular Graphs,” STOC ’98, pp. 249-58, published in
`1998
`
`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
`
`1011
`
`Final Written Decision, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 42 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2016)
`
`1012
`
`Certificate of Correction, U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (Sept. 2, 2008)
`
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Exhibit
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Order, California Institute of Technology v.
`Hughes Communications Inc., No. 13-cv-7245 (C.D. Cal.)
`
`Decision on Institution, Hughes Network Systems, LLC et al. v. Cal.
`Institute of Tech., IPR2015-00059, Paper 18 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2015)
`
`1015
`
`Expert Report of Dr. Brendan Frey (Case No. 2:13-cv-07245)
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`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
`
`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, Monticello, Illinois, pp. 201-9, September
`1998
`
`1018
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,271,520 (1981)
`
`1019
`
`Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh Concerning the “Proceedings, 36th
`Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing”
`Reference
`
`1020
`
`Chris Heegard and Stephen B. Wicker, Turbo Coding, pp. 12-14, 1999
`
`1021
`
`George C. Clark, Jr. and J. Bibb Cain, Error-Correction Coding for
`Digital Communications, pp. 6, 229, 1938
`
`1022
`
`Pfister, H. and Siegel, P., “The Serial Concatenation of Rate-1 Codes
`Through Uniform Random Interleavers,” 37th Allerton Conf. on
`Comm., Control and Computing, Monticello, Illinois, published on or
`before September 24, 1999
`
`1023
`
`Replacement copy of Declaration of Paul H. Siegel (“Siegel
`Declaration”)
`
`1024
`
`Kschischang, F.R., and Frey, B.J., “Iterative decoding of compound
`codes by probability propagation in graphical models,” IEEE Journal
`on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 219-230,
`1998
`
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00700
`U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032
`
`Description
`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
`
`Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice
`
`Exhibit
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`
`
`
`ActiveUS 165304434
`
`- 8 -
`
`