`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 16
`Entered: September 11, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-00033 (Patent 7,587,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00034 (Patent 7,979,277 B2)
`IPR2023-00035 (Patent 10,062,377 B2)
`IPR2023-00036 (Patent 10,839,789 B2)
`IPR2023-00037 (Patent 10,971,140 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conditionally Granting Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Christina Canino
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the identified proceedings. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00033 (Patent 7,587,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00034 (Patent 7,979,277 B2)
`IPR2023-00035 (Patent 10,062,377 B2)
`IPR2023-00036 (Patent 10,839,789 B2)
`IPR2023-00037 (Patent 10,971,140 B2)
`
`
`On August 23, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro hac vice
`admission of Christina Canino. Paper 14 (“Motion”).2 Petitioner also
`submitted a declaration from Attorney Canino in support of the Motion.
`Ex. 1043 (“Declaration”). Petitioner attests that Patent Owner does not
`oppose the Motion. Motion 2. For the reasons provided below, the Motion
`for Attorney Canino is conditionally granted.
`In accordance with 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 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, 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 Attorney Canino has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding, that
`Attorney Canino has demonstrated sufficient litigation experience and
`familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding, and that Attorney
`Canino meets all other requirements for admission pro hac vice. See
`Declaration ¶¶ 1–9. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for
`
`
`2 We cite to Papers and Exhibits filed in IPR2023-00033. Similar Papers and
`Exhibits were filed in IPR2023-00034, 00035, 00036, and 00037.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00033 (Patent 7,587,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00034 (Patent 7,979,277 B2)
`IPR2023-00035 (Patent 10,062,377 B2)
`IPR2023-00036 (Patent 10,839,789 B2)
`IPR2023-00037 (Patent 10,971,140 B2)
`
`pro hac vice admission of Attorney Canino. They will be permitted to serve
`as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Petitioner has not filed a Power of Attorney including Attorney
`Canino in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). See, e.g., Paper 2. Nor has
`Petitioner filed Mandatory Notices identifying Attorney Canino as back-up
`counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3). See, e.g., Paper 1, 77.
`In view thereof, Petitioner’s Motion is conditionally granted for Attorney
`Canino, and is to be effective after Petitioner files an inclusive Power of
`Attorney and updated Mandatory Notices.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Attorney Canino is conditionally granted provided that (i) within ten (10)
`business days of the date of this order Petitioner must submit a Power of
`Attorney for Attorney Canino in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) and
`(ii) within twenty-one (21) business days of the date of this order Petitioner
`must submit updated Mandatory Notices identifying Attorney Canino as
`back-up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Canino is authorized to
`represent Petitioner as back-up counsel only in this proceeding;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00033 (Patent 7,587,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00034 (Patent 7,979,277 B2)
`IPR2023-00035 (Patent 10,062,377 B2)
`IPR2023-00036 (Patent 10,839,789 B2)
`IPR2023-00037 (Patent 10,971,140 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney Canino complies with the
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide3 (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 Attorney Canino 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.
`
`
`
`
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00033 (Patent 7,587,319 B2)
`IPR2023-00034 (Patent 7,979,277 B2)
`IPR2023-00035 (Patent 10,062,377 B2)
`IPR2023-00036 (Patent 10,839,789 B2)
`IPR2023-00037 (Patent 10,971,140 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Adam P. Seitz
`Adam M. Sandwell
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`adam.sandwell@eriseip.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter C. Knops
`Kayvan B. Noroozi
`NOROOZI PC
`peter@noroozipc.com
`kayvan@noroozipc.com
`
`Katherine Rhoades
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`katherine.rhoades@bartlitbeck.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`