`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Date: January 21, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00592 (Patent 10,469,934 B2)
`IPR2021-00600 (Patent 10,298,451 B1)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, DAVID C. MCKONE,
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative
`Patent Judges.2
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael Pieja
`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.
`2 This is not a decision by an expanded panel.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592 (Patent 10,469,934 B2)
`IPR2021-00600 (Patent 10,298,451 B1)
`
`
`On January 13, 2022, Petitioner filed Motions in each proceeding for
`
`pro hac vice admission of Michael Pieja. See Paper 27. 3 On January 21,
`
`2022, Petitioner filed updated Declarations from Mr. Pieja, in each of the
`
`instant proceedings. See Ex. 1025.4
`
`Having reviewed the Motions and Declarations5, we conclude that
`
`Mr. Pieja has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner in these
`
`proceedings, and that Petitioner has shown good cause for admission pro
`
`hac vice of Mr. Pieja. 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. Pieja 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 admission pro hac vice of
`
`Michael Pieja in these proceedings are granted, and Mr. Pieja 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;
`
`
`
`3 We refer to papers filed in IPR2021-00592. Similar papers were filed in
`each proceeding.
`4 We refer to exhibits filed in IPR2021-00592. Similar exhibits were filed in
`each proceeding.
`5 The Declarations each refer to “set forth in part 42 of the Code of Federal
`Regulations,” (see, for example, Ex. 1025 ¶ 5), but the Board’s Rules of
`Practice for Trials are set forth in part 42 of Title 37 C.F.R. We deem this
`harmless error.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592 (Patent 10,469,934 B2)
`IPR2021-00600 (Patent 10,298,451 B1)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Pieja is to comply with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November
`
`2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated,
`
`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. Pieja 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;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit, within ten (10)
`
`business days of the date of this order, a Power of Attorney for Mr. Pieja in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) in each proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file an updated mandatory
`
`notice in each proceeding, according to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), providing
`
`updated information regarding back-up counsel.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00592 (Patent 10,469,934 B2)
`IPR2021-00600 (Patent 10,298,451 B1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Roberto Devoto
`Ryan Chowdhury
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`rchowdhury@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark Knedeisen
`Lauren Murray
`Brian Bozzo
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`lauren.murray@klgates.com
`brian.bozzo@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`