UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-00720
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MATTHEW S. YUNGWIRTH UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Inter Partes Review No. 2017-00720
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MATTHEW S. YUNGWIRTH UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`of Matthew S. Yungwirth
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`I.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and the Board’s order received via e-mail
`
`on February 8, 2017 authorizing the filing of the instant motion, Petitioners Ruckus
`
`Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”) respectfully request that the Board recognize Matthew S.
`
`Yungwirth, Esq., as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding, IPR2017-00720.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE
`BOARD TO RECOGNIZE COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE DURING THE
`PROCEEDING
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice subject to the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner
`
`and to any other conditions that the Board may impose. Section 42.10(c) provides
`
`that “where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac
`
`vice by counsel who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing
`
`that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity
`
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” See also Unified Patents v.
`
`Parallel Iron, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (Oct. 15, 2013). The following facts
`
`establish good cause for the Board to recognize Matthew Yungwirth pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`I, Joseph A. Powers, lead counsel, am a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew S. Yungwirth
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`2. Mr. Yungwirth is an experienced patent litigator, and has established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding from his participation
`
`in co-pending litigation involving the subject patents and related patents.
`
`Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 is currently asserted against Petitioners
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. and Netgear, Inc. in co-pending litigation in the Northern
`
`District of California, Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Case
`
`No. 3:16-cv-00186 and Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Netgear, Inc., Case No.
`
`3:16-cv-00624. Mr. Yungwirth is a member of the Georgia Bar in good standing,
`
`and has been representing these Petitioners as lead counsel in the aforementioned
`
`co-pending litigation matters since their inception. Mr. Yungwirth has been
`
`actively involved in all aspects of these co-pending litigation matters.
`
`3. Mr. Yungwirth has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any other
`
`Board or United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proceeding
`
`except for the concurrently submitted Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission in
`
`IPR2017-00718, -00719, and -00790.
`
`4.
`
`As part of his participation in the aforementioned co-pending
`
`litigation matters involving the subject patent and related patents, Mr. Yungwirth
`
`has been actively involved in: (1) the preparation of invalidity contentions against
`
`the claims of the subject patent and related patents, and (2) the evaluation of Patent
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew S. Yungwirth
`
`Owner’s infringement contentions alleging that Petitioners Ruckus Wireless, Inc.
`
`IPR2017-00720
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`and Netgear, Inc. infringe the claims of the subject patent and related patents. Mr.
`
`Yungwirth is also knowledgeable regarding Petitioners’ technology and the state of
`
`the art relevant to this proceeding based on his prior experience representing
`
`Petitioners in patent litigation matters. Petitioners wish to apply Mr. Yungwirth’s
`
`knowledge concerning the patent, related patents, and the state of the art, and
`
`familiarity with Petitioners, by employing him as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`Admission of Mr. Yungwirth pro hac vice will enable Petitioners to avoid
`
`unnecessary expense and duplication of work between this proceeding and the co-
`
`pending litigation.
`
`5.
`
`Petitioners’ lead counsel, Joseph A. Powers, is a registered
`
`practitioner and Mr. Yungwirth is an experienced patent litigation attorney having
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Therefore, Petitioners respectfully submit that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Yungwirth as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`6.
`
`This Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is supported by a
`
`Declaration of Mr. Yungwirth (Exhibit 1018).
`
`7.
`
`Counsel for the Petitioners contacted by telephone Rick Hoffman,
`
`counsel for the Patent Owner, on February 3, 2017 to determine whether Chrimar
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew S. Yungwirth
`
`would oppose Mr. Yungwirth appearing pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`IPR2017-00720
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for the Patent Owner stated that Chrimar would not oppose this motion.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Matthew Yungwirth pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Joseph A. Powers /
`
`Joseph A. Powers
`
`Reg. No. 47,006
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`Date: February 14, 2017
`
`
`Duane Morris LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia PA 19103-4196
`Tel: 215-979-1842
`Fax: 215-689-3797
`Email: japowers@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew S. Yungwirth
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`
`the attached Petitioners’ Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Matthew
`
`Yungwirth and related documents, are being served via Electronic Mail on the 14th
`
`day of February, 2017, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board, and upon the Patent Owner, pursuant to the Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices, by serving its designated lead and back-up counsel
`
`for these proceedings as follows:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.,
`1000 Town Center, Twenty-Second Floor,
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`CHRMC0108IPR2@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann (Reg. No. 33,711)
`Reising Ethington P.C.
`755 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 1850,
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffmann@reising.com
`
`
`Dated: February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Joseph A. Powers /
`Joseph A. Powers (Reg. No. 47,006)
`
`
`IPR2017-00720
`Page 5 of 5
`
`
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
