`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 16, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`AND ZTE (USA) INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01472 - Patent 6,466,563 B1
`Case IPR2018-01473 - Patent 6,611,676 B2
`Case IPR2018-01475 - Patent 7,760,815 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
`BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. John K. Harting and Ms. Mary Pheng
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01472 - Patent 6,466,563 B1
`Case IPR2018-01473 - Patent 6,611,676 B2
`Case IPR2018-01475 - Patent 7,760,815 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr. John K.
`Harting and Ms. Mary Pheng. Paper 15, 17.2 The motions were
`accompanied by declarations from Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng in support of
`the motions. Id. at 2–3; Paper 16, 18.3 Patent Owner did not indicate
`whether its motions were unopposed, but Petitioner has not filed opposition
`within the seven-day period following the filing of the motions. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.25.
`Having reviewed the motions and declarations, we conclude that Mr.
`Harting and Ms. Pheng have sufficient qualifications to represent Patent
`Owner in these proceedings, and that Patent Owner has shown good cause
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng. See Unified
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013)
`(setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission) (Paper 7). Mr.
`Harting and Ms. Pheng will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this
`proceeding as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`We note that Patent Owner filed mandatory notices including
`Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), and a
`Power of Attorney including Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng in accordance with
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Paper 7, 13.
`
`
`2 Paper and Exhibit numbers refer to IPR2018-01472. Similar papers were
`filed in IPR2018-01473 and IPR2018-01475.
`3 Patent Owner filed the Declarations as Papers. We deem this harmless
`error. However, Patent Owner is reminded that affidavits and declarations
`must be filed as exhibits. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) (“Evidence consists of
`affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All evidence
`must be filed in the form of an exhibit.”).
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01472 - Patent 6,466,563 B1
`Case IPR2018-01473 - Patent 6,611,676 B2
`Case IPR2018-01475 - Patent 7,760,815 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Mr. John K. Harting and Ms. Mary Pheng are granted, and Mr. Harting
`and Ms. Pheng are authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up
`counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng are to comply
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the August 2018
`Update, 83 Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), and the July 2019
`Update (84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of
`Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal
`Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Harting and Ms. Pheng are subject to
`the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–
`11.901.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01472 - Patent 6,466,563 B1
`Case IPR2018-01473 - Patent 6,611,676 B2
`Case IPR2018-01475 - Patent 7,760,815 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Adam P. Seitz
`Paul R. Hart
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`Martin R. Bader
`Nam H. Kim
`Ericka Jacobs Schulz
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`nkim@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`Bing Ai
`Vinay P. Sathe
`Babak Tehranchi
`
`Kevin J. Patariu
`John P. Schnurer
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`vsathe@perkinscoie.com
`btehranchi@perkinscoie.com
`kpatariu@perkinscoie.com
`jschnurer@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Cyrus A. Morton
`Bryan J. Vogel
`Derrick J. Carman
`Li Zhu
`Shui Li
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01472 - Patent 6,466,563 B1
`Case IPR2018-01473 - Patent 6,611,676 B2
`Case IPR2018-01475 - Patent 7,760,815 B2
`
`Stephanie A. Diehl
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`bvogel@robinskaplan.com
`dcarman@robinskaplan.com
`lzhu@robinskaplan.com
`sli@robinskaplan.com
`sdiehl@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`5
`
`