`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: March 11, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ALARM.COM INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`VIVINT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01965 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01967 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01995 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01997 (Patent 6,717,513 B1)
`Case IPR2015-02003 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2015-02004 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00116 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00155 (Patent 6,147,601)
`Case IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`Case IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues pertaining to all eleven cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 and IPR2015-01967 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`IPR2015-01997 (Patent 6,717,513 B1)
`IPR2015-01995 and IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`IPR2015-02003 and IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, and IPR2016-00155 (Patent 6,147,601)
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Roger G. Brooks and Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Alarm.com Incorporated (“Petitioner”), moves for pro hac
`vice admission of Mr. Roger G. Brooks and Ms. Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal.
`IPR2015-001965, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2015-001967, Papers 3 and 4;
`IPR2015-01977, Papers 4 and 5; IPR2015-01995, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2015-
`01997, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2015-02003, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2015-02004,
`Papers 3 and 4; IPR2016-00116, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2016-00155, Papers 3
`and 4; IPR2016-00161, Papers 3 and 4; IPR2016-00173, Papers 3 and 4.
`Petitioner provides Affidavits from Mr. Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal in
`support of its Motions.2 Id. Patent Owner, Vivint, Inc., has not opposed Mr.
`Brooks’s or Ms. Sankoorikal’s admission pro hac vice in these cases.
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Affidavits from Mr. Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal, we conclude that Mr.
`Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal have sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Petitioner in these cases. Mr. Brooks and Ms.
`Sankoorikal have demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject
`
`
`2 The affidavits were included in the papers filed in each case, rather than as
`separate exhibits. The parties are cautioned that such affidavits should be
`filed as separate exhibits.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 and IPR2015-01967 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`IPR2015-01997 (Patent 6,717,513 B1)
`IPR2015-01995 and IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`IPR2015-02003 and IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, and IPR2016-00155 (Patent 6,147,601)
`
`
`matter of these cases and that there is a need for Petitioner to have counsel
`with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in these
`cases. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for Mr. Brooks’s
`and Ms. Sankoorikal’s pro hac vice admission. Mr. Brooks and Ms.
`Sankoorikal are permitted to appear pro hac vice in these cases as back-up
`counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Roger G. Brooks and Ms. Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal are granted, and
`Mr. Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal are authorized to represent Petitioner as
`back-up counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in each case;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal shall
`comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of
`Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42, of the Code of Federal
`Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brooks and Ms. Sankoorikal are
`subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a)
`and to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01965 and IPR2015-01967 (Patent 7,884,713 B1)
`IPR2015-01977 (Patent 6,924,727 B2)
`IPR2015-01997 (Patent 6,717,513 B1)
`IPR2015-01995 and IPR2016-00173 (Patent 6,535,123 B2)
`IPR2015-02003 and IPR2016-00161 (Patent 6,462,654 B1)
`IPR2015-02004, IPR2016-00116, and IPR2016-00155 (Patent 6,147,601)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William H. Mandir
`Brian K. Shelton
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`bshelton@sughrue.com
`
`Roger G. Brooks
`Teena-Ann V. Sankoorikal
`CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
`rgbrooks@cravath.com
`tsankoor@cravath.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Michael V. Messinger
`Christian Camarce
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`rsterne@skgf.com
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
`ccamarce-PTAB@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`4
`
`