`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: July 5, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-010071
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 ARRIS Group, Inc., who filed a Petition in IPR2017-00422, has been
`joined in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`As authorized by the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition
`(Paper 3), TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a “Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.10(c)” (Paper 17,
`“Mot.”) of Rajendra A. Chiplunkar. Patent Owner is expected to continue to
`have a registered practitioner as lead counsel. Patent Owner states that
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and ARRIS Group, Inc. (“Petitioner”) do not oppose
`Patent Owner’s Motion. Mot. 3.
`
`Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for us to recognize Mr.
`Chiplunkar pro hac vice in this proceeding. Mot. 2–3. Patent Owner’s
`assertions in this regard are supported by a Declaration of Mr. Chiplunkar.
`Ex. 2008.2 We determine that Patent Owner has established that there is
`good cause for the pro hac vice admission of Mr. Chiplunkar in this
`proceeding. Patent Owner’s Motion is granted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c);
`see also Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Order
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, Paper 7 (October 15,
`2003) (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice admission).3
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission is
`granted, and Mr. Chiplunkar is authorized to represent Patent Owner as
`back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also filed a Biography of Mr. Chiplunkar (Ex. 2007) in
`support of the Motion.
`3 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-
`patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this inter partes review proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chiplunkar 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 that Mr. Chiplunkar 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.; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file an updated
`mandatory notice identifying lead and back-up counsel in accordance with
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8, 42.10 within three (3) business days.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01007
`Patent 8,432,956 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David L. McCombs
`Theodore M. Foster
`Gregory P. Huh
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`gregory.huh.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Christopher M. Scharff
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`cscharff@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`4
`
`