`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. and PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before STACEY G. WHITE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Andrew Radsch
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 These cases have not been joined or consolidated. Rather, this Order
`addresses issues that are the same in the 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 filing style in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`
`On May 12, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission
`of Andrew Radsch, accompanied by a declaration from Mr. Radsch, in each
`of the instant proceedings.2 See Paper 36; Ex. 1112.3 Petitioner Palo Alto
`Networks, Inc. filed a power of attorney for Mr. Radsch. Paper 24.
`Having reviewed the motions and declarations, we conclude that
`Mr. Radsch has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in these
`proceedings, and that Petitioner has shown good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Radsch. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Order Authorizing Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice
`admission). Mr. Radsch will be permitted to appear pro hac vice as back-up
`counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Andrew Radsch in these proceedings are granted, and Mr. Radsch is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in each proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Radsch is to comply with the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November
`2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated,
`
`
`2 We cite to the first-filed Motion in each case. Paper 37 in each case is a
`duplicate, and will be expunged.
`3 See also IPR2020-00337, Paper 36, Exhibit 1112.
`4 See also IPR2020-00337, Paper 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of
`Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Radsch is 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
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00336 (Patent 6,665,725 B1)
`IPR2020-00337 (Patent 6,771,646 B1)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph Edell
`Adam Allgood
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`joe.edell.ipr@fischllp.com
`adam.allgood@fischllp.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`James Batchelder
`Mark Rowland
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`mark.rowland@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Bullwinkel
`Michael Heim
`HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
`abullwinkel@hpcllp.com
`mheim@hpcllp.com
`
`4
`
`
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
