`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 94
` Date: January 15, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP., CAVIUM, LLC, and
`DELL INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00226 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00234 (Patent 8,805,948 B2)
`____________
`
`INTEL CORP. and CAVIUM, LLC,2
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`1 Cavium, Inc., which filed petitions in Cases IPR2018-00400 and IPR2018-
`00403 and Dell Inc., which filed petitions in IPR2018-01306 and IPR2018-
`01307, were joined as petitioners in IPR2018-00226 and IPR2018-00234,
`respectively. According to updated mandatory notices filed in the captioned
`proceedings, Cavium, Inc. has now been converted to Cavium, LLC. See,
`e.g., IPR2018-00226, Paper 28.
`
`2 Intel Corporation, which filed a petition in IPR2018-01352, was joined as a
`petitioner in IPR2018-00401.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00226 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2018-00234 (Patent 8,805,948 B2)
`IPR2018-00401 (Patent 7,945,699 B2)
`
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00401 (Patent 7,945,699 B2)
`
`____________
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Sanford I. Weisburst
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Alacritech, Inc. filed an Unopposed Motion for
`
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Sanford I. Weisburst in the above-captioned
`
`proceedings. IPR2018-00226, Paper 92; IPR2018-00234, Paper 82;
`
`IPR2018-00401, Paper 73 (collectively “Motions”). Patent Owner also filed
`
`Declarations of Mr. Weisburst in support of its Motions. IPR2018-00226,
`
`Ex. 2605; IPR2018-00234, Ex. 2605; IPR2018-00401, Ex. 2603
`
`(collectively, “Declarations”). The facts alleged in the Declarations comply
`
`with the requirements set forth in our representative Order authorizing
`
`motions for pro hac vice admission.
`
`The Motions represent that Petitioners do not oppose. Motions 2.
`
`We have reviewed the submissions and determined that the requirements of
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and that there is good cause to admit
`
`Mr. Weisburst pro hac vice.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00226 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2018-00234 (Patent 8,805,948 B2)
`IPR2018-00401 (Patent 7,945,699 B2)
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Admission
`
`Pro Hac Vice of Sanford I. Weisburst are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Weisburst will be authorized to
`
`represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Weisburst is to comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Weisburst is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00226 (Patent 7,124,205 B2)
`IPR2018-00234 (Patent 8,805,948 B2)
`IPR2018-00401 (Patent 7,945,699 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Garland T. Stephens
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`Garland.stephens@weil.com
`Jason.lang@weil.com
`
`David Xue
`RIMON Law
`David.xue@rimonlaw.com
`
`Brady Cox
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`Brady.cox@alston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`James M. Glass
`Joseph Paunovich
`Brian Mack
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`joepaunovich@quinnemanuel.com
`brianmack@quinnemanuel.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
