throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 20
`Entered: April 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY KOREA
`CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`Case IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Michael H. Jones
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all four cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each of the four cases.
`The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent
`papers.
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, LG Electronics, Incorporated and LG Electronics U.S.A,
`Incorporated (collectively, “LG”), filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Michael H. Jones in each proceeding identified above.
`Paper 18 (“Mot.”).2 Patent Owner, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology
`Korea Corporation, does not oppose. For the reasons provided below, LG’s
`Motions are granted.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 4, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order –
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`In these proceedings, lead counsel for LG, Mr. Brian A. Tollefson, is
`a registered practitioner. Mot. 3; Paper 1, 4–5. LG asserts that there is good
`cause for us to recognize Mr. Jones pro hac vice in these proceedings. Mot.
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to the papers filed in Case IPR2015-
`001642.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`2–4. LG’s assertions in this regard are supported by the Declaration of Mr.
`Jones. Paper 19.3
`Mr. Jones declares that he is a member in good standing of the Bars of
`the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia, and that he is admitted to
`practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`Paper 19 ¶ 2. Mr. Jones also declares that he is familiar with the subject
`matter at issue in these proceedings, particularly because he represents LG in
`at least two related district court cases where the involved patents have been
`asserted. Paper 19 ¶ 10. In addition, the facts alleged in Mr. Jones’s
`Declaration comply with all the requirements set forth in our representative
`Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See Mot. 2–4; Paper
`19 ¶¶ 1, 3–9.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Jones has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent LG, and that there is a need for LG to
`have its counsel from the related district court cases involved in these
`proceedings. Accordingly, LG has established that there is good cause for
`the pro hac vice admission of Mr. Jones in these proceedings.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`3 The Declaration of Mr. Jones was filed as a paper in this case, rather than
`as a separate exhibit. The parties are cautioned that, going forward, such
`evidence should be filed as an exhibit. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) (“Evidence
`consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All
`evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`Mr. Michael H. Jones are GRANTED. Mr. Jones is authorized to represent
`LG as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that LG is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Jones shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), 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. Jones shall be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the Office’s
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01642 (Patent 6,721,110 B2)
`IPR2015-01644 (Patent 6,785,065 B1)
`IPR2015-01653 (Patent RE43,106 E)
`IPR2015-01659 (Patent 7,367,037 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Brian A. Tollefson
`Jason M. Shapiro
`Michael V. Battaglia
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`btollefson@rothwellfigg.com
`jshapiro@rothwellfigg.com
`mbattaglia@rothwellfigg.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Jonathan A. Roberts
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`jar@nixonvan.com
`jr@nixonvan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket