`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01511
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MICHAEL W. DE VRIES
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. ( “Cisco”)
`
`respectfully moves the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“Board”) for the pro hac
`
`vice admission of Michael W. De Vries in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which provides that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 and to any other conditions as the
`Board may impose. For example, 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.
`
`The Board has stated that a motion for admission pro hac vice should
`
`include a “statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding” and “[b]e accompanied by
`
`an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the
`
`following
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`District of Columbia; ii. No suspensions or disbarments from practice
`before any court or administrative body; iii. No application for
`admission to practice before any court or administrative body ever
`denied; iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court
`or administrative body; v. The individual seeking to appear has read
`and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`vi. The individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); vii. All other proceedings
`before the Office for which the individual has applied to appear pro
`hac vice in the last three (3) years; and viii. Familiarity with the
`subject matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR 2013-00639 (MPT) (Paper 7 at 3-
`
`4).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts, supported by Mr. De Vries’ declaration (Ex.
`
`1047), Cisco requests that Mr. De Vries be admitted pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding as he meets the requirements. As an initial matter, Cisco’s lead
`
`counsel in this matter before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, James Marina
`
`(No. 41,969), is a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`1. Mr. De Vries has more than 17 years of experience as a litigation attorney
`
`specializing in patent litigation, representing clients in patent litigation matters in
`
`various United States District Courts and before the International Trade
`
`Commission.
`
`2. Mr. De Vries is very familiar with U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760, and with
`
`the legal subject matter, technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`
`which forms the basis for this proceeding. He is counsel for Cisco in the co-
`
`pending district court action related to this patent (Cisco Systems, Inc. v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-13770 (E.D. Mich.), filed
`
`November 20, 2017) and is involved with factual and technical developments in
`
`that matter.
`
`3. Mr. De Vries is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of
`
`California. He is admitted to practice before before the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the United States District Court for the
`
`Eastern District of California, the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of California, the United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court of Colorado, the United States District
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for
`
`the Federal Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
`
`Circuit.
`
`4. Mr. De Vries has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body.
`
`5. Mr. De Vries has never had a court or administrative body deny an
`
`application for admission to practice.
`
`6. Mr. De Vries has never been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`7. Mr. De Vries has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board's Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`
`37 C.F.R.
`
`8. Mr. De Vries agrees to be subject to the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`9.
`
`In the past 3 years, Mr. De Vries was admitted pro hac vice as counsel
`
`before the PTAB in the following actions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2014-01457, IPR2014-01458, IPR2014-01459,
`IPR2015-01052, IPR2015-01053, and IPR2015-01054 as counsel for
`Biscotti concerning a Real Time Video Communications System.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2015-00999 and IPR2015-01001 as counsel for
`Cisco Systems, Inc. concerning Admissions Control In A Connectionless
`Communications Network, and Providing Media Communication Across
`Firewalls, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2016-01398, IPR2016-01401, and IPR2016-
`01402 as counsel for Intel Corp. concerning Security Processor With Bus
`Configuration, Performance Based Packet Ordering In A PCI Express Bus,
`and Method For Effecting The Controlled Shutdown Of Data Processing
`Units, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2016-01434 as counsel for Oracle Corporation
`concerning an Apparatus For Distributing Content Objects To A
`Personalized Access Point Of A User Over A Network-Based Environment
`And Method.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2017-00609, IPR2017-00610, and IPR2017-00616
`as counsel for LivePerson, Inc. concerning Integrated Chat Client With
`Calling Party Choice; Interaction Management; And Method and Apparatus
`for Intelligent Routing of Incoming Calls to Representatives in a Call
`Center, respectively.
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2018-00320 as counsel for Sierra Wireless, Inc.
`concerning Method and Devices for the Transmission of Data with
`Transmission Error Checking.
`
`•
`
`Inter Partes Reviews IPR2017-02183, IPR2018-00128, IPR2018-00176 as
`counsel for Motorola Solutions, Inc. concerning Two-Way Radio
`Equipment and Systems, Related Software and Components Thereof.
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`
`MR. DE VRIES IN THIS PROCEEDING
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`registered practitioner and any other conditions the Board may impose. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Cisco’s lead counsel in this Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`matter, James Marina, is a registered practitioner before the Board. Based on the
`
`facts contained herein, good cause exists to admit Mr. De Vries pro hac vice.
`
`Mr. De Vries is an experienced litigator with more than 17 years of patent
`
`litigation experience. Mr. De Vries has represented clients in matters related to
`
`computer systems and networked communications technologies, among others,
`
`and has significant experience in patent litigation matters. Mr. De Vries is
`
`counsel for Cisco in the co-pending litigation on this same patent between same
`
`parties, and Mr. De Vries was, and is, actively involved with the strategy and fact
`
`development in the matter. In view of Mr. De Vries’ extensive knowledge of
`
`the subject matter of this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this
`
`proceeding and the co-pending district court litigation, Cisco has a substantial
`
`need for Mr. De Vries’ pro hac vice admission and his involvement in the
`
`continued prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Cisco respectfully requests that Michael W. De
`
`Vries be admitted pro hac vice.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ James Marina
`James Marina (Reg. No. 41,969)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Fax: (212) 446-4900
`james.marina@kirkland.com
`
`Robert Kang (Reg. No. 59,609
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Fax: (415) 439-1500
`robert.kang@kirkland.com
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys For Petitioner Cisco
`Systems, Inc.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001 Declaration of George Zimmerman Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`9,812,825
`1002 Curriculum Vitae of George Zimmerman
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`1004 U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`1006 U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`1007
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389,
`Paper No. 69 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01391,
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01397
`Paper No. 66 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2017)
`Final Written Decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760,
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01399
`Paper No. 73 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)
`1011 Oral hearing transcript, August 31, 2017, Juniper Networks,
`Inc. v. ChriMar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01389, 1391, 1397, 1399.
`1012 Opinion, ChriMar Holding Company, LLC, ChriMar Systems,
`Inc. dba CMA Technologies, Inc v. ALE USA Inc., fka Alcatel-
`Lucent Enterprise USA, Inc., 17-1848, Dkt. No. 55 (May 8,
`2018)
`1013 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`Alcatel-Lucent S.A. et al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas, Dkt. No. 122, March 28, 2016
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Description
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1014 Defendant’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Jury Demand and
`Counterclaim to First Amended Complaint, Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`ChriMar Sys. Inc., 2:17-cv-13770, Dkt. 22 (E.D. Mich. Mar.
`16, 2018)
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent No. 9,812,825
`IEEE 802.3-1985
`IEEE 802.3i-1990
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993
`IEEE Standards Association News & Events: Press Releases
`“IEEE 802.3 Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of
`Innovation and Global Market Growth”
`1024 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt
`1025 U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070 to Nelson
`1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 to Fisher
`1029 U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 to De Nicolo
`1030 U.S. Patent No. 6,140,911 to Fisher
`1031 U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`1032 U.S. Patent No. 6,865,152 to Luhmann
`1033 WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`1034
`Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5 to Peguiron, Certified Copy
`of an English Translation Version of CH 643 095 A5, and
`Declaration of John E. Dawson
`Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No.
`8,902,760, September 18, 2017
`Ex Parte Reexamination Advisory Action for U.S. Patent No.
`8,155,012, June 14, 2017
`
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`9
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1037 Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwidth: A Serious Guide to
`High-Speed Networking”, Que Corporation (1997)
`1038 Michael Nootbar, “Why Power Over Signal Pairs?” (March
`2000)
`1039 Randy H. Katz “High Performance Network and Channel-
`Based Storage”, Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`1040 Robert Muir, “DTE power over MDI - DTE Discovery
`Process Proposal” (November 1999)
`1041 Definitions of “10Base-T” and “100Base-T”, Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press 5th ed. 2002
`Standard Microsystems Corp. Data Catalog (1982)
`http://www.bitsavers.org/components/standardMicrosystems/_
`dataBooks/1982_StandardMicrosystems.pdf
`1043 UART Datasheet (2008)
`https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/data-sheet/SCC2691.pdf
`1044 What is a DC-DC converter?
`https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-
`converters/what-is-dc-dc-converter
`1045 What is the Difference Between Linear and Switching
`Regulators? https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/dc-dc-
`converters/linear-vs-switching-regulators
`1046 Declaration of Matthew B. Shoemake
`1047 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioner Cisco Systems,
`Inc.
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`1042
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01511
`Petitioners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing is being served
`
`on October 11, 2018, via email directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at
`
`the following:
`
`CHRMC0120IPR@brookskushman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James Marina
`James Marina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
