`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: January 23, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2018-01511
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael
`W. De Vries in this proceeding. Paper 6 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Patent
`Owner did not file an opposition to the Motion. For the following reasons,
`the Motion is granted.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause,
`subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered practitioner,
`back-up counsel may be permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing
`that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id. For the
`reasons set forth in the Motion and the accompanying declaration of Mr. De
`Vries (Ex. 1047), good cause exists to admit Mr. De Vries pro hac vice in
`this proceeding.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`It is hereby
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Mr. Michael W. De Vries
`is authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in the above-listed
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries is to comply with the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and is
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`§§ 11.101 et seq., and to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`James E. Marina
`Robert Kang
`Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Frank A. Angileri
`Thomas A. Lewry
`Marc Lorelli
`Christopher C. Smith
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`fangileri@brookskushman.com
`tlewry@brookskushman.com
`mlorelli@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`
`4
`
`