`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 16
`Entered: November 3, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-00601 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`Case IPR2022-00602 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of George C. Summerfield and Jonah Heemstra
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses the same issue for the above-identified cases.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one decision to be filed in
`each case. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading
`in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00601 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-00602 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed Motions for pro hac vice admission of George C.
`Summerfield (Paper 142 (“Summerfield Motion”)) and Jonah Heemstra
`(Paper 15 (“Heemstra Motion”)) as well as supporting declarations from Mr.
`Summerfield (Exhibit 2006 (“Summerfield Declaration”)) and from Mr.
`Heemstra (Exhibit 2008 (“Heemstra Declaration”)) in the above-listed
`proceedings. Patent Owner states that Petitioner does not oppose the
`motions. Summerfield Motion 3; Heemstra Motion 3. For the following
`reasons, 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 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”)).
`Having reviewed the Motions and supporting Declarations, good
`cause exists for granting admission pro hac vice to Mr. Summerfield and
`Mr. Heemstra.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that the Motions are granted, and Mr. Summerfield and
`Mr. Heemstra are authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel
`in the above-listed proceedings;
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2022-00601 unless otherwise noted. Similar papers
`and exhibits were filed in IPR2022-00602.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00601 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-00602 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summerfield and Mr. Heemstra each
`shall comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the
`July 2019 Update, 84 Federal Register 33,925 (July 16, 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 that each of Mr. Summerfield and Mr.
`Heemstra are subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to the USPTO’s disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00601 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-00602 (Patent 9,665,705 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Adam P. Seitz
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Darlene Ghavimi-Alagha
`Brian Bozzo
`K&L GATES LLP
`darlene.ghavimi@klgates.com
`brian.bozzo@klgates.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
