`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 14
`Entered: November 1, 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: IPR2016-012541
`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 Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`John P. Murphy
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Patent Owner moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. John P.
`Murphy. See, e.g., IPR2016-01254, Paper 13. Patent Owner indicates it has
`conferred with Petitioner and Petitioner does not oppose Patent Owner’s
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in the inter partes reviews listed in
`the Appendix. Therefore, we issue one Order 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
`
`Motions. Id. Patent Owner provides Declarations from Mr. Murphy in
`support of its Motions. See, e.g., Ex. 2007.
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations from Mr. Murphy, we conclude that Mr. Murphy has sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these cases,
`that Mr. Murphy 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.
`Murphy’s pro hac vice admission. Mr. Murphy 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 Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Mr. John P. Murphy are granted, and Mr. Murphy is authorized to
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Murphy 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. Murphy 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01254
`Patent 8,457,113 B2
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. Inter Partes Review Patent Owner’s
`Motion3
`Paper 8
`Paper 12
`Paper 8
`Paper 15
`Paper 16
`Paper 13
`Paper 13
`Paper 8
`Paper 12
`
`APPENDIX2
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 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.
`
`3 The Declaration of Mr. Murphy is filed as Exhibit 2007 in each of the
`cases listed in this Appendix.
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
