`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date: January 24, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`VERVAIN, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-01547 (Patent 8,891,298 B2)
`IPR2021-01548 (Patent 9,196,385 B2)
`IPR2021-01549 (Patent 9,997,240 B2)
` IPR2021-01550 (Patent 10,950,300 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, STACEY G. WHITE, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Jared Bobrow
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issue for the above-identified proceedings.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each
`proceeding. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style
`heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547 (Patent 8,891,298 B2)
`IPR2021-01548 (Patent 9,196,385 B2)
`IPR2021-01549 (Patent 9,997,240 B2)
`IPR2021-01550 (Patent 10,950,300 B2)
`
`
`On January 12, 2022, Petitioner filed motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Jared Bobrow in each of the above-listed proceedings. Paper 8
`(“Motion”). 2 Petitioner also filed a supporting declaration from Mr. Bobrow
`in each proceeding. Ex. 1056 (“Declaration”). Patent Owner has not
`opposed the Motion.
`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 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”)).
`Lead counsel for Petitioner, Jeremy Jason Lang, a registered
`practitioner, filed each Motion. Motion, 1. 3 In the Motion, Petitioner states
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Bobrow pro hac vice
`during these proceedings because Mr. Bobrow “is an experienced litigation
`attorney” and “has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`proceeding” and the patents at issue. Motion, 2; see also, Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 8, 9.
`
`
`2 Our citations to Papers and Exhibits will be to those filed in IPR2021-
`01547. Similar Papers and Exhibits were filed in IPR2021-01548, IPR2021-
`01549, and IPR2021-01550.
`3 The Motion does not contain page numbers. We identify page 1 as the first
`page of the body of the Motion.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547 (Patent 8,891,298 B2)
`IPR2021-01548 (Patent 9,196,385 B2)
`IPR2021-01549 (Patent 9,997,240 B2)
`IPR2021-01550 (Patent 10,950,300 B2)
`
`Mr. Bobrow’s Declaration also complies with the requirements for pro hac
`vice admission. Ex. 1056 ¶¶ 1–10; see Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`Having reviewed the Motion and supporting Declaration, we find that
`good cause exists for granting admission pro hac vice to Mr. Bobrow in each
`of the above-listed proceedings.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Jared Bobrow is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in the above-
`identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner shall continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow shall comply with the Office
`Patent 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;5 and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bobrow shall be subject to the
`USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq. and the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`5 The Motion states that “Mr. Bobrow has read and will comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practice for
`Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.” Motion, 2. The Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials are set forth in
`Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations. We treat the omission of
`“Title 37” as harmless error.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01547 (Patent 8,891,298 B2)
`IPR2021-01548 (Patent 9,196,385 B2)
`IPR2021-01549 (Patent 9,997,240 B2)
`IPR2021-01550 (Patent 10,950,300 B2)
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Parth Sagdeo
`Christopher Childers
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`jlang@orrick.com
`psagdeo@orrick.com
`cchilders@orrick.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Alan Whitehurst
`Kathy H. Li
`James E. Quigley
`Christopher P. McNett
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`awhitehurst@mckoolsmith.com
`kli@mckoolsmith.com
`jquigley@mckoolsmith.com
`cmcnett@mckoolsmith.com
`
`4
`
`