`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper 39
`
`
`Entered: August 18, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-012541
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Thomas C. Cecil
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision applies to each of the proceedings listed in the Appendix.
`Therefore, we issue one Decision to be filed in all of the cases. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style of filing in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Thomas C. Cecil (Paper 382), supported by a Declaration of Mr. Cecil
`(Ex. 2052), in each of the proceedings listed in the Appendix. The Motions
`are unopposed.
`Based on the facts set forth in each Motion and each accompanying
`Declaration from Mr. Cecil, we conclude that Mr. Cecil has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these proceedings,
`that Mr. Cecil has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject
`matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Patent Owner to have
`counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in
`these cases. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for
`Mr. Cecil pro hac vice admission.
`For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Mr. Thomas C. Cecil are granted, and Mr. Cecil is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the proceedings listed in the Appendix;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a power of attorney must be filed with
`the designation of counsel for Mr. Cecil, in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cecil 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
`
`
`2 Citations herein will be to IPR2016-01254, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Cecil is 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.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Wayne Stacy
`Sarah Guske
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`John Murphy
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`APPENDIX3
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`
`IPR2016-01258
`IPR2016-01262
`
`IPR2016-01256
`IPR2016-01259
`IPR2016-01263
`IPR2016-01254
`IPR2016-01257
`IPR2016-01260
`IPR2016-01261
`
`7,764,777 B2
`
`8,155,298 B2
`
`8,457,113 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Bright House Networks, LLC, WideOpenWest Finance, LLC, Knology of
`Florida, Inc., and Birch Communications are Petitioner in IPR2016-01259,
`-01261, -01262, and -01263.
`
`YMax Corporation is Petitioner in IPR2016-01256, -01258, and -01260.
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. is Petitioner in IPR2016-01254 and -01257.
`
`
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
