`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 27
`Date: March 21, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`MEMORYWEB, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
`KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conditionally Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Angelo J. Christopher
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`On March 17, 2023, Patent Owner filed a Motion requesting pro hac
`vice admission of Angelo J. Christopher. Paper 26 (“Motion”). Patent
`Owner submitted a Declaration of Mr. Christopher in support of the Motion.
`Ex. 2029. Patent Owner attests that Petitioner does not oppose the Motion.
`Motion 1.
`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
`5, 2 (citing 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 and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Mr. Christopher has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding, that
`Mr. Christopher has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject
`matter of this proceeding, and that Mr. Christopher meets all other
`requirements for admission pro hac vice. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 1–10; Motion 1–
`2. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Christopher.
`Upon 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.
`Christopher. In view thereof, and for the reasons set forth below, Patent
`Owner’s Motion is conditionally granted, and is to be effective after the
`aforementioned Power of Attorney has been filed.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner has not filed updated mandatory notices identifying Mr.
`Christopher as back-up attorney. Therefore, Patent Owner must file an
`updated mandatory notice identifying Mr. Christopher as back-up counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Angelo J. Christopher is conditionally granted; provided that within
`seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Patent Owner submits a Power of
`Attorney, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file an updated
`mandatory notice identifying Mr. Christopher as back-up counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding,
`but that Mr. Christopher is authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Christopher comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019))1
`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. Christopher 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.
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00221
`Patent 10,423,658 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`W. Karl Renner
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`Hyun Jin In
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`Axf-ptab@fr.com
`Jjm@fr.com
`in@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jennifer Hayes
`George Dandalides
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`jenhayes@nixonpeabody.com
`gdandalides@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
