`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`PLAYTIKA LTD. and PLAYTIKA HOLDING CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEXRF CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00951 (Patent 8,747,229 B2)
`IPR2021-00952 (Patent 8,506,406 B2)
`IPR2021-00953 (Patent 9,646,454 B1)
`__________
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, and
`TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.1
`
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Christopher Gosselin
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in each of the
`above-captioned proceedings. We therefore exercise our discretion to issue
`one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The proceedings have not been
`consolidated, and the Parties are not authorized to use this style heading in
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00951 (Patent 8,747,229 B2)
`IPR2021-00952 (Patent 8,506,406 B2)
`IPR2021-00953 (Patent 9,646,454 B1)
`
`
`NexRF Corp. (“Patent Owner”) filed Motions for admission of
`Christopher Gosselin pro hac vice in each of the above-captioned
`proceedings. Paper 9 (“Mot.”, “Motion”). 2 Petitioner has not opposed the
`Motions. The 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 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”)) (“Notice”).
`Patent Owner states that there is good cause for the Board to
`recognize Christopher Gosselin pro hac vice during these proceedings
`because he (1) “is an experienced litigator with more than a decade of
`experience representing clients in patent litigation matters related to
`software, electrical, mechanical, and electro-mechanical arts”; (2) “is very
`familiar with the challenged patent, as well as the legal subject matter,
`technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in the Petition”; (3) “has
`personally reviewed the prosecution history, the prior art discussed in the
`Petition, and the declaration and exhibits accompanying the Petition”; and
`(4) “has been and continues to be actively involved with preparing
`
`2 We cite to Papers and Exhibits in IPR2021-00951. Similar items were
`filed in IPR2021-00952 and IPR2021-00953.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00951 (Patent 8,747,229 B2)
`IPR2021-00952 (Patent 8,506,406 B2)
`IPR2021-00953 (Patent 9,646,454 B1)
`
`submissions in this matter, with the strategic, factual, and technical aspects
`of this matter, and in counseling, and coordinating with Patent Owner.”
`Mot. 5–6. Patent Owner also states that it “has a substantial need for Mr.
`Gosselin’s pro hac vice admission and his involvement in the continued
`prosecution of this proceeding” “[i]n view of Mr. Gosselin’s extensive
`knowledge of the subject matter of this proceeding.” Id. at 6.
`The Motions are supported by Declarations of Mr. Gosselin
`(Ex. 2007, “Decl.”) that attest to the statements above and comply with the
`requirements set forth in the Notice. See Decl. ¶¶ 1–10.
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Gosselin
`has sufficient legal and technical qualifications and familiarity with the
`subject matter at issue, and that there is a need for Patent Owner to have
`counsel with his experience. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 1–3; Mot. 5–6. Patent Owner
`therefore has established good cause for admitting Mr. Gosselin
`pro hac vice in each of the above-captioned proceedings.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for admission pro hac vice
`of Christopher Gosselin in the above-captioned proceedings are granted;
`Mr. Gosselin is authorized to act as back-up counsel in these proceedings
`only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gosselin shall comply with the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00951 (Patent 8,747,229 B2)
`IPR2021-00952 (Patent 8,506,406 B2)
`IPR2021-00953 (Patent 9,646,454 B1)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gosselin is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00951 (Patent 8,747,229 B2)
`IPR2021-00952 (Patent 8,506,406 B2)
`IPR2021-00953 (Patent 9,646,454 B1)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Cory Bell
`Gerson Panitch
`Forrest Jones
`Christina Ji-Hye Yang
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`cory.bell@finnegan.com
`gerson.panitch@finnegan.com
`forrest.jones@finnegan.com
`christina.yang@finnegan.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eugene LeDonne
`Brian Murphy
`Jonathan Herstoff
`HAUG PARTNERS LLP
`eledonne@haugpartners.com
`bmurphy@haugpartners.com
`jherstoff@flhlaw.com
`
`
`Adam Yowell
`Alastair Warr
`FISHERBROYLES
`adam.yowell@fisherbroyles.com
`alastair.warr@fisherbroyles.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`