throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper No. 31
`
` Date Entered: June 5, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTSTREAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`Case IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B1)
`Case IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)1
`Case IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)2,3
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Rajkumar Vinnakota
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 IPR2018-01602 and IPR2018-01603 have been consolidated with IPR2018-
`01601.
`2 IPR2018-01606 and IPR2018-01607 have been consolidated with IPR2018-
`01605.
`3 This Decision addresses an issue pertaining to all ten cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B2)
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Rajkumar
`
`Vinnakota (Paper 29, “Motions”)4 as well as a supporting declaration from Mr.
`
`Vinnakota (Ex. 2045, “Declarations”) in each of the above-identified
`
`proceedings.5,6 Petitioner informed the Board via email that it does not oppose
`
`Patent Owner’s Motions.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel pro hac
`
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In authorizing a motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission, 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
`
`the proceeding. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order –
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`
`
`4 Our citations are to IPR2018-01594. Similar documents were filed in IPR2018-
`01599, IPR2018-01600, IPR2018-01601, IPR2016-01604, and IPR2018-01605.
`
`5 The Declarations contain a typographical error in Paragraph 6, incorrectly listing
`Patent 7,762,800 as the patent at issue, instead of Patent 7,620,800. We deem this
`to be harmless error, as the correct patent number (7,620,800) is listed on the cover
`sheet of the Declarations in the respective proceedings. See, e.g., IPR2018-01605,
`Ex. 2060 ¶ 6.
`
`6 Patent Owner inadvertently filed the Motions for the Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Rajkumar Vinnakota as Exhibits. See, e.g., IPR2018-01594, Ex. 2044. Patent
`Owner subsequently filed the Motions as papers. See Paper 29. Accordingly,
`Patent Owner’s Motions filed as Exhibits will be expunged.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B2)
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`
`Having reviewed the Motions and supporting Declarations, good cause
`
`exists for granting admission pro hac vice to Mr. Vinnakota in the above
`
`proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions seeking admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`for Rajkumar Vinnakota are GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall submit, within ten (10)
`
`business days of the date of this Decision, a Power of Attorney for Mr. Vinnakota
`
`in each of the above proceedings accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall submit an updated
`
`mandatory notice identifying Mr. Vinnakota as back-up counsel in each of the
`
`above proceedings, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Vinnakota is to comply with the Board’s
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal
`
`Regulations and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide including the August 2018
`
`update;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Vinnakota is subject to the USPTO’s Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to the
`
`USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in the above proceedings; and
`
`Mr. Vinnakota is authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only in
`
`the proceedings; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B2)
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 2044 of IPR2018-01594, Exhibit 2057
`
`of IPR2018-01599, Exhibit 2057 of IPR2018-01600, Exhibit 2060 of IPR2018-
`
`01601, Exhibit 2055 of IPR2018-01604, and Exhibit 2059 of IPR2018-01605 are
`
`expunged.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B2)
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`Jason Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Alfonso Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`Joseph DePumpo
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket