`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 67
`Entered: October 10, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`____________
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conditionally Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Leif E. Peterson, II
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a motion in IPR2022-00031, requesting pro hac vice
`admission of Leif E. Peterson, II. Paper 59. The motion is supported by the
`declaration of Mr. Peterson. Ex. 1101. Petitioner attests that the Patent
`Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s motion. Paper 59, 1.
`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. Unified Patents, Inc.
`v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7)
`(representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”).
`Based on the facts set forth in the motion, we conclude that Mr.
`Peterson has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`Petitioner in this proceeding, that Mr. Peterson has demonstrated sufficient
`litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter of this
`proceeding, and that Mr. Peterson meets all other requirements for
`admission pro hac vice. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Peterson. Mr. Peterson will be permitted
`to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Upon a review of the record before us, we note that a Power of
`Attorney in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) has not been submitted for
`Mr. Peterson. In view thereof, and for the reasons set forth below,
`Petitioner’s motion is conditionally granted, and is to be effective after
`Petitioner files the aforementioned Power of Attorney.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Leif E. Peterson, II is conditionally granted provided that within ten (10)
`days of the date of this Order, Petitioner submits a Power of Attorney, in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file updated mandatory
`notices identifying Mr. Peterson as back-up counsel in accordance with 37
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding,
`but that Mr. Peterson is authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Peterson shall comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (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
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Peterson shall be 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00031
`Patent 10,621,228 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`Angelo J. Christopher
`Matthew A. Werber
`Daniel Schwartz
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@nixonpeabody.com
`achristopher@nixonpeabody.com
`mwerber@nixonpeabody.com
`djschwartz@nixonpeabody.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
