Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 16
`Entered: October 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048;
`IPR2019-00049; IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B21
`____________
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Gregory H. Lantier
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the above-listed proceedings. We exercise
`our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. Unless
`otherwise authorized, the parties shall not use this heading style in any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 16
`Entered: October 31, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048;
`IPR2019-00049; IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B21
`____________
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Gregory H. Lantier
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the above-listed proceedings. We exercise
`our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. Unless
`otherwise authorized, the parties shall not use this heading style in any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048; IPR2019-00049;
`IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Gregory H.
`Lantier (“Motions”) in the above-listed proceedings. Paper 14 (“Mot.”).2
`The Motions are unopposed. Upon review of the record before us, and for
`the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Motions are granted.
`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 that 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
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission”)).
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner is David L. Cavanaugh, a registered
`practitioner. Mot. 1. In the Motions, Petitioner states that there is good
`cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Lantier pro hac vice in these
`proceedings. Id. The Motions further assert that Mr. Lantier has experience
`and familiarity with the subject matter of the patent at issue. Id.
`Declarations of Gregory H. Lantier attesting to, and sufficiently
`explaining, the required facts accompany the Motions. Ex. 1038. The
`Declarations comply with the requirements for pro hac vice admission and
`establish that Mr. Lantier is an experienced attorney with an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in these proceedings. Id. ¶¶ 2,
`13–14. The Declarations further acknowledge that Mr. Lantier is subject to
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2019-00047 unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048; IPR2019-00049;
`IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`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). Id. ¶ 11.
`
`Upon consideration of the circumstances of these proceedings,
`Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that Mr. Lantier has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner
`has established that there is good cause for admitting Mr. Lantier. Mr.
`Lantier may only be designated as backup counsel.
`We also note that Petitioner should update its mandatory notices for
`each of the above-identified proceedings, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8,
`and update its counsel information in the PTAB E2E filing system.
`
`Petitioner’s Motions are granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048; IPR2019-00049;
`IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that the Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Gregory
`H. Lantier are granted, and that Gregory H. Lantier is authorized to
`represent Petitioner, only as backup counsel, in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file updated mandatory
`notices in these proceedings identifying Mr. Lantier as backup counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lantier shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the July 2019 Update, 84 Federal
`Register 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. Lantier 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).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00047; IPR2019-00048; IPR2019-00049;
`IPR2019-00128; and IPR2019-00129
`Patent 9,154,356 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Cavanaugh
`John Hobgood
`Benjamin Fernandez
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`john.hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`ben.fernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Cochran
`Matthew Johnson
`Joseph Sauer
`Joshua Nightingale
`David Maiorana
`JONES DAY
`dcochran@jonesday.com
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`jmsauer@jonesday.com
`jrnightingale@jonesday.com
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`5
`
`
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
