`
` Paper 15
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 20, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01619
`Case IPR2017-01620
` (Patent 8,489,868 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses an issue that is identical in both cases. We exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in both cases. The parties, however,
`are not authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01619; IPR2017-001620
`(Patent 8,489,868 B2)
`Blackberry Ltd. (“Blackberry”) filed motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Sharon Lee, Paper 13 in both of these cases. The motions are
`unopposed. The motions are granted.
`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. In
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice, the Board requires the moving party to
`provide a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the
`individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. Paper 5 (“Notice”).
`In its motions, Blackberry states that there is good cause for the Board
`to recognize Sharon Lee pro hac vice during this proceeding, because she is
`an experienced litigating attorney with an established familiarity with the
`subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Paper 13. Ms. Lee made a
`declaration, Exhibit 2001, attesting to these facts, which declaration
`complies with the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`Upon consideration, Blackberry has demonstrated that Ms. Lee has
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Blackberry in this
`proceeding and established good cause for admitting Ms. Lee.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Blackberry’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Sharon Lee for these proceedings are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Blackberry is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Lee is to 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
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01619; IPR2017-001620
`(Patent 8,489,868 B2)
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Lee is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01619; IPR2017-001620
`(Patent 8,489,868 B2)
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Phillip Citroën
`John Holley
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`PH-Google-BBIPR@paulhastings.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Samuel A. Dillon
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`clfukuda@sidley.com
`samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`