`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: June 4, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWILIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-00360 (US 7,945,034 B2)
`IPR2016-00450 (US 8,462,920 B2)
`IPR2016-00451 (US 8,867,038 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`1 This Decision addresses issues common to the above identified cases.
`Therefore, we exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in
`each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any
`papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00360 (US 7,945,034 B2)
`IPR2016-00450 (US 8,462,920 B2)
`IPR2016-00451 (US 8,867,038 B2)
`
`
`
`On May 25, 2016, in each proceeding, Petitioner filed a Motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission of Mr. Britton F. Davis (IPR2016-00360, Paper 152),
`
`along with a supporting Affidavit by Mr. Davis (Id. Exhibit A).3 Patent
`
`Owner has not opposed Petitioner’s Motions.
`
`Petitioner’s lead counsel, Wayne Stacy, is a registered practitioner.
`
`Paper 14, 2. Petitioner has shown by its Motion and Mr. Davis’s Affidavit
`
`that Mr. Davis is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceedings. Paper 15; see
`
`also 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`Based upon consideration of the Motion and the record before us, we
`
`grant Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Davis. See
`
`also Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, Order
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, (PTAB Oct. 15, 2003)
`
`(Paper 7) (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice admission).4
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission of Mr. Davis to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel
`
`in the instant proceedings is granted;
`
`
`
`2 For convenience, paper and exhibit numbers refer to IPR2016-00360;
`corresponding papers may be found in the record of IPR2016-00450 and
`IPR2016-00451.
`3 Petitioner filed each Motion and Affidavit together as a single document.
`The parties are reminded that affidavits must be filed as exhibits, rather than
`papers, and numbered sequentially in the appropriate range. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63.
`4 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-
`patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00360 (US 7,945,034 B2)
`IPR2016-00450 (US 8,462,920 B2)
`IPR2016-00451 (US 8,867,038 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davis is to 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. Davis 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2016-00360 (US 7,945,034 B2)
`IPR2016-00450 (US 8,462,920 B2)
`IPR2016-00451 (US 8,867,038 B2)
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`Mikaela Stone
`Britton Davis
`wstacy@cooley.com
`mstone@cooley.com
`bdavis@cooley.com
`zTwilioIPR@cooley.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jesse Camacho
`Elena McFarland
`Amy Foust
`JCAMACHO@shb.com
`EMCFARLAND@shb.com
`TeleSignIPR@shb.com
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
