throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 41
`Entered: July 5, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. AND JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ORCKIT CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00401 (Patent 7,545,740 B2)
`IPR2023-00402 (Patent 8,830,821 B2)
` IPR2023-00554 (Patent 10,652,111 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`ORDER
`Conditionally Granting Petitioner’s Motions for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Ken K. Fung
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 Juniper Networks, Inc. filed motions for joinder and petitions in IPR2024-
`00026, IPR2024-00034, and IPR2024-00037, which were granted.
`Accordingly, Juniper Networks, Inc has been joined as a petitioner in these
`proceedings. This Order addresses issues that are identical in each of the
`above-identified cases. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to issue one
`order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not authorized to
`use this style heading in any subsequent papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00401 (Patent 7,545,740 B2)
`IPR2023-00402 (Patent 8,830,821 B2)
`IPR2023-00554 (Patent 10,652,111 B2)
`
`
`On June 14, 2024, Petitioner Juniper Networks filed motions for pro
`hac vice Admission of Ken K. Fung in each of the above-identified
`proceedings. IPR2024-00026, Paper 8 (collectively “Motions”).2 The
`Motion in each case is supported by a Declaration of Mr. Fung. IPR2024-
`00026, Exhibit 1025 (collectively “Declarations”). Petitioner Juniper
`Networks indicates that “counsel for Patent Owner doesn’t oppose Mr. Fung
`appearing pro hac vice during this proceeding.” Motions, 2.
`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, 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 Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Fung has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Petitioner Juniper Networks in these proceedings,
`has demonstrated sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the
`subject matter of these proceedings, and meets all other requirements for
`admission pro hac vice. See Declarations ¶¶ 1–9. Accordingly, Petitioner
`Juniper Networks has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Fung.
`
`
`2 For expediency, we refer to Paper and Exhibit numbers filed in IPR2024-
`00026. Similar Papers and Exhibits were filed in IPR2024-00034 and
`IPR2024-00037.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00401 (Patent 7,545,740 B2)
`IPR2023-00402 (Patent 8,830,821 B2)
`IPR2023-00554 (Patent 10,652,111 B2)
`
`
`
`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.
`Fung in any of these proceedings. In view thereof, and for the reasons set
`forth below, the Motions are conditionally granted, and will become
`effective only after Petitioner Juniper Networks files the aforementioned
`Power of Attorney.
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner Juniper Networks’ Motions (IPR2024-
`00026, Paper 8; IPR2024-00034, Paper 8; and IPR2024-00037, Paper 9) for
`pro hac vice admission of Ken K. Fung are conditionally granted, provided
`that within ten (10) business days of the date of this order, Petitioner Juniper
`Networks must submit a Power of Attorney for Mr. Fung in accordance with
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) in each of these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Juniper Networks must file
`updated mandatory notices identifying Mr. Fung as back-up counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) in each of these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fung will be authorized to act only
`as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fung shall comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide3 (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)),
`
`
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00401 (Patent 7,545,740 B2)
`IPR2023-00402 (Patent 8,830,821 B2)
`IPR2023-00554 (Patent 10,652,111 B2)
`
`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. Fung 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2023-00401 (Patent 7,545,740 B2)
`IPR2023-00402 (Patent 8,830,821 B2)
`IPR2023-00554 (Patent 10,652,111 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Theodore Foster
`David McCombs
`Gregory Huh
`Calmann Clements
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLLP
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Calmann.clements.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Kyle Tsui
`Andrew Ramos
`Kyle.tsui@fischllp.com
`Andrew.ramos@fischllp.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James T. Carmichael
`Stephen McBride
`jim@carmichaelip.com
`stevemcbride@carmichaelip.com
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket