`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: October 2, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FORTINET, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOPHOS INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00617 (Patent 6,195,587 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00618 (Patent 8,261,344 B2)
` Case IPR2015-00619 (Patent 8,607,347 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, PETER P. CHEN, and
`MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Decision Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jordan R. Jaffe
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00617 (Patent 6,195,587 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00618 (Patent 8,261,344 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00619 (Patent 8,607,347 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Jordan R.
`Jaffe in each of these proceedings. Paper 14.2 Each motion is supported by
`an affidavit of Mr. Jaffe. Ex. 1021.
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and there is good cause to
`admit Mr. Jaffe pro hac vice.3
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`It is therefore
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Jordan R. Jaffe in each of these proceedings is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jaffe is authorized to appear as back-
`up counsel for Petitioner in each of these proceedings, but he may not act as
`lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for each of these
`proceedings;
`
`2 Paper and exhibit numbers refer to Case IPR2015-00617. Corresponding
`motions and affidavits were filed in each of the other cases.
`3 According to the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, Mr. Jaffe’s affidavit must
`provide a statement acknowledging that he will be subject to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 CFR §§ 11.101 et seq. In his
`affidavit, Mr. Jaffe incorrectly cites 37 CFR §§ 10.20 et seq. with respect to
`the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to this order, by
`appearing pro hac vice in this case Mr. Jaffe agrees 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00617 (Patent 6,195,587 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00618 (Patent 8,261,344 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00619 (Patent 8,607,347 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jaffe 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. Jaffe is 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.;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file updated mandatory
`notices, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), providing updated information
`regarding back-up counsel.
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Jason Liu
`Robert Kang
`Jared Newton
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
`jasonliu@quinnemanuel.com
`robertkang@quinnemanuel.com
`jarednewton@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`James M. Heintz
`Gianni Minutoli
`Nicholas Panno
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`SophosFortinetIPR@dlapiper.com
`nicholas.panno@dlapiper.com
`
`3