UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606, and IPR2018-01607
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01605, IPR2018-01606, and IPR2018-01607
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER DIRECTSTREAM, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`RAJKUMAR VINNAKOTA UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner, Directstream, LLC, respectfully
`
`requests the pro hac vice admission of Rajkumar Vinnakota in these proceedings.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAWS, 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 showing that counsel is an experienced
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with
`the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`As stated in the "Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission"
`
`entered in Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT) (Paper 6) ("Motorola Order"), any motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) must be filed “no sooner
`
`than (21) days after service of the petition.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts and supported by the Declaration of Rajkumar
`
`Vinnakota (“Vinnakota Decl.”) submitted herewith, Directstream, LLC requests
`
`the pro hac vice admission of Rajkumar Vinnakota in this proceeding.
`
`1. Patent Owner Directstream’s lead counsel, Alfonso Chan, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 45,964).
`
`2
`
`
`
`2. Mr. Vinnakota is a Partner at the law firm Janik Vinnakota LLP. Vinnakota
`
`Decl. at ¶ 3.
`
`3. Mr. Vinnakota is an experienced litigation attorney who has been litigating
`
`patent cases for approximately fifteen years. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`4. In his role as counsel for Patent Owner, Mr. Vinnakota has an established
`
`familiarity with all six patents asserted against Microsoft in the field of high-
`
`performance computing design (the field of technology to which they all pertain),
`
`and the prior art asserted in this proceeding. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`5. Mr. Vinnakota has been practicing since 2003 and has extensive experience
`
`litigating patent infringement cases in many different district courts across the United
`
`States. Id. at ¶ 4, 5, 7. Mr. Vinnakota also has developed specialized skills and
`
`experience regarding procedural issues that arise in PTAB trials, including
`
`administrative law and constitutional issues. Id. at ¶ 14.
`
`6. Mr. Vinnakota has been co-lead counsel in various patent infringement trials
`
`and argued multiple Markman hearings and many other patent-related hearings. Id. at
`
`¶ 5.
`
`7. Mr. Vinnakota is a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas. Id. at ¶
`
`7.
`
`8. Mr. Vinnakota has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`3
`
`
`
`9. No application of Mr. Vinnakota for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body has ever been denied. Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`10. No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against Mr.
`
`Vinnakota by any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 10.
`
`11. Mr. Vinnakota has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42. Id. at ¶
`
`11.
`
`12. Mr. Vinnakota understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`13. Mr. Vinnakota has appeared before the Board pro hac vice in the last several
`
`years in: (1) IPR2014-00411 and IPR2015-00065 (consolidated); and has presented
`
`oral arguments to the Board in IPR2014-00411. Id. at ¶ 13.
`
`14. This motion was filed more than 21 days after service of the Petition in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. VINNAKOTA IN THIS PROCEEDING
`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). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Alfonso Chan, is a registered practitioner.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Vinnakota’s Declaration,
`
`good cause exists to admit Mr. Vinnakota pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Vinnakota is an experienced patent litigator with unique knowledge of
`
`PTAB trials and procedure, including administrative and constitutional issues.
`
`Mr. Vinnakota also has an established familiarity with U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,076,152, 6,247,110, 6,434,687, 7,225,324, 7,421,524, and 7,762,800 because of
`
`his work for Patent Owner.
`
`In view of Mr. Vinnakota’s extensive knowledge of this subject matter, Patent
`
`Owner, Directstream, LLC, has a substantial need for Mr. Vinnakota’s pro hac
`
`vice admission and his involvement in the briefing and oral arguments in this case.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons as well as the reasons contained in the attached
`
`declaration, Patent Owner Directstream, LLC respectfully requests admission of
`
`Rajkumar Vinnakota as counsel pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: June 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan, Reg. No. 45,964
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214-593-9110
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of Patent
`
`Owner Directstream, LLC Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rajkumar
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) on June 3, 2019 to the Petitioner at the electronic
`
`correspondence address of the Petitioners as follows:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
