`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: October 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Cases: IPR2016-01254 and IPR2016-012571
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Sarah J. Guske
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Petitioner moves for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Sarah J. Guske.
`
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01254, Paper 11.2 Petitioner provides Declarations from
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`2 Citations herein will be to IPR2016-01254, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254, IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Ms. Guske in support of its Motions. See, e.g., Id. at Exhibit A.3 Patent
`
`Owner has not filed an opposition to Petitioner’s Motions.
`
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`
`Declarations from Ms. Guske, we conclude that Ms. Guske has sufficient
`
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these cases, that
`
`Ms. Guske has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject
`
`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 Ms. Guske
`
`pro hac vice admission.
`
`Ms. Guske attests that she agrees to be subject to the Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. Paper 11,
`
`Ex. A ¶ 10. However, new Rules of Professional Conduct have been
`
`adopted and took affect May 3, 2013. See Changes to Representation of
`
`Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule,
`
`78 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr. 3, 2013). We grant Petitioner’s Motion with the
`
`requirement that Ms. Guske’s representation is subject to the USPTO Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. Ms. Guske
`
`will be 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
`
`Ms. Sarah J. Guske are granted, and Ms. Guske is authorized to represent
`
`
`3 Petitioner attached Exhibit A to its Motion. Petitioner is reminded that its
`exhibits must be filed as a separate Exhibit and uniquely numbered
`sequentially in the range of 1001–1999. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254, IPR2016-01257
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`Petitioner as back-up counsel in these cases;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Guske 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 Ms. Guske 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
`zCisco-PAL-IPR@cooley.com
`
`Britton Davis
`bdavis@cooley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.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
