`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 9 (IPR2015-00999)
`Paper 9 (IPR2015-01001)
`Entered: July 22, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SPHERIX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Cases1
`IPR2015-00999 (Patent 7,397,763 B2)
`IPR2015-01001 (Patent 8,607,323 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JUSTIN BUSCH, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Michael De Vries and Adam Alper
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Decision applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`References to papers are to those filed in IPR2015-00999.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00999 (Patent 7,397,763 B2)
`IPR2015-01001 (Patent 8,607,323 B2)
`
`
`
`On May 26, 2015, Petitioner, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”), filed a
`
`motion for pro hac vice admission of Michael De Vries and Adam Alper.
`
`Paper 7. We have reviewed the motion. It is hereby granted.
`
`
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding
`
`upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). If lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, a non-registered practitioner 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.
`
`
`
`In this proceeding lead counsel for Cisco is David L. McCombs, a
`
`registered practitioner. Cisco’s motion is supported by the declarations of
`
`Mr. De Vries (Ex. 1012) and Mr. Alper (Ex. 1011). We have reviewed the
`
`declarations submitted by Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper, including their
`
`statements regarding years of litigation experience, lack of discipline or
`
`denial of admission to practice before any court or administrative body, and
`
`familiarity with the legal and technical issues in this proceeding. Ex. 1011
`
`¶¶ 3–4, 6–8; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 3–5, 7–9.
`
`
`
`Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper further each states (1) that he has read
`
`and will 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 (2) that he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Code
`
`of Professional Responsibility. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 9–10; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 10–11.
`
`
`
`Paragraph 11 of Mr. De Vries’s declaration and paragraph 10 of
`
`Mr. Alper’s declaration indicate that Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper,
`
`respectively, agree to be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00999 (Patent 7,397,763 B2)
`IPR2015-01001 (Patent 8,607,323 B2)
`
`Responsibility. We note that, effective May 3, 2013, the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct replaced the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility. For purposes of Cisco’s motion, we understand
`
`paragraph 11 of Mr. De Vries’s declaration and paragraph 10 of Mr. Alper’s
`
`declaration to indicate their compliance with the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct. Future declarations submitted in support of a motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission should refer to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct.
`
`
`
`Cisco has shown that Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper have sufficient
`
`qualifications to represent Cisco in this proceeding. Cisco has established
`
`good cause for admission, pro hac vice, of Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper.
`
`It is
`
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. De Vries and Mr. Apler is granted; Mr. De Vries and
`
`Mr. Alper are authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in
`
`the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries and Mr. Alper are 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;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. DeVries and Mr. Alper are to be
`
`subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a),
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00999 (Patent 7,397,763 B2)
`IPR2015-01001 (Patent 8,607,323 B2)
`
`and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`David.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Theodore M. Foster
`Ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`Raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Donald McPhail
`dmcphail@cozen.com
`
`Carl B. Wischhusen
`cwwischhusen@cozen.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
