`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 42
`Entered: October 7, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ARNOUSE DIGITAL DEVICES CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`_______________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`WILLIAM V. SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Geoffrey H. Hand
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Patent Owner Arnouse Digital Devices Corporation (hereinafter “ADDC”)
`
`filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Geoffrey H. Hand. Paper 35. The
`
`motion is unopposed. For the reasons provided below, ADDC’s motion is granted.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), 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. In its Order authorizing motions for
`
`pro hac vice admission, the Board required 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 this proceeding. Paper 6. 1
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for ADDC, Justin W. McCabe, is a
`
`registered practitioner. ADDC’s motion indicates that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Hand pro hac vice during this proceeding, supported by the
`
`affidavit of Mr. Hand. In particular, Mr. Hand attests that he is an experienced
`
`litigation attorney. Paper 35 at 5.2 Mr. Hand also attests that he has established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the instant proceeding as well as the
`
`concurrent litigation. Id. Additionally, Mr. Hand’s affidavit complies with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Board’s order authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission. Id. at 4-5; see Paper 6.
`
`In the present case, additional considerations are warranted. ADDC’s
`
`original council was granted leave to withdraw. Paper 30. ADDC’s original
`
`council also represented ADDC in the concurrent litigation. See id. at 5. Mr.
`
`
`1 Paper 6 is listed in PRPS as document numbers 7 and 8.
`2 Mr. Hand’s affidavit should have been filed as a separate exhibit. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63(a).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`Arnouse, the inventor and CEO of ADDC, requested to represent ADDC pro se or
`
`pro hac vice but this request was denied. Id. at 6-7. Shortly thereafter, Mr.
`
`McCabe, a registered practitioner, was appointed as ADDC’s attorney. Paper 32.
`
`Under the totality of the circumstances, we determine that Mr. Hand has
`
`sufficient qualifications to represent ADDC in the instant proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, ADDC has established that there is good cause for Mr. Hand’s
`
`admission.
`
`
`
`It is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that ADDC’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Geoffrey H.
`
`Hand is granted; Mr. Hand is authorized to represent ADDC as back-up counsel in
`
`the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that ADDC is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hand is to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide 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. Hand is to 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.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ko-Fang Chang
`kchang@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin McCabe
`jmccabe@dunkielsaunders.com
`
`
`Geoff Hand
`ghand@dunkielsaunders.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
