`
`
`Paper # 26
`Entered: June 30, 2022
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________________
`
`IPR2021-01342 (Patent 6,968,248 B1)
`IPR2021-01344 (Patent 6,907,305 B2)1
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, JOHN D. HAMANN, and DAVID COTTA,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conditionally Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Peter A. Mazur
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in each of these proceedings. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties are
`not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01342 (Patent 6,968,248 B1)
`IPR2021-01344 (Patent 6,907,305 B2)
`
`
`On June 21, 2022, Patent Owner filed Motions requesting Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Peter A. Mazur in the above-identified proceedings. Paper 25. 2
`Patent Owner submitted Declarations from Mr. Mazur in support of the Motions.
`Ex. 2043. Patent Owner states that the Motions are unopposed.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro hac
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition
`that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. In its notice authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission, the Board requires 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, Paper 7
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Mazur has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding, that Mr. Mazur has
`demonstrated sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter
`of this proceeding, that Mr. Mazur meets all other requirements for admission pro
`hac vice. See Paper 25, 1–3. 3 Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good
`cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Mazur. Mr. Mazur will be permitted to
`appear pro hac vice as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2021-01342 with the understanding that the other
`proceeding includes papers and exhibits having substantially the same substantive
`content.
`3 The motion (Paper 25, 2) for IPR2021-01342 refers to Patent 6,907,305. This
`appears to be a typographical error, with the intended reference to Patent
`6,968,248, that does not affect our review of the submissions in this case.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01342 (Patent 6,968,248 B1)
`IPR2021-01344 (Patent 6,907,305 B2)
`
`
`Upon review of the records before us, we note, however, that Power of
`Attorney in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) have not been submitted for Mr.
`Mazur in the above-identified proceedings. In view thereof, and for the reasons set
`forth below, Patent Owner’s Motions are conditionally granted, to be effective
`after Patent Owner files the aforementioned Power of Attorney.
`
`It is therefore,
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of Peter
`A. Mazur are conditionally granted provided that within ten (10) business days of
`the date of this Order, Patent Owner submits Powers of Attorney in the above-
`identified proceedings, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file updated mandatory
`notices identifying Mr. Mazur as back-up counsel in the above-identified
`proceedings, within twenty-one (21) business days of the date of this Order, in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mazur is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner only as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mazur is to comply with the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide4 (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280
`(Nov. 21, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part
`42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01342 (Patent 6,968,248 B1)
`IPR2021-01344 (Patent 6,907,305 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mazur is subject to the USPTO’s Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Eric A. Krause
`Pan C. Lee
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`ekrause@axinn.com
`plee@axinn.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Timothy Devlin
`Alex Chan
`Joel Glazer
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`TD-PTAB@devlinlawfirm.com
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com
`Jglazer@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`