`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 32
`Entered: January 9, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, AND ZTE (USA), INC.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-014931
`Patent 8,457,676 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., ZTE Corporation, and ZTE (USA),
`Inc. filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-01081, and have been
`joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01493
`Patent 8,457,676 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Jonathan
`H. Rastegar in this proceeding. Paper 25 (“Motion”). Petitioner has not
`opposed the Motion. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
`II. ANALYSIS
`Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause,
`subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered
`practitioner, back-up counsel may be permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`Id. For the reasons set forth in the Motion and the accompanying affidavit
`of Mr. Rastegar (Ex. 2008), we find that good cause exists to admit
`Mr. Restegar pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Jonathan H. Rastegar is
`authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Restegar is to comply with the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and is
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01493
`Patent 8,457,676 B2
`
`§§ 11.101 et seq., and to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven A. Moore
`Brian Nash
`Rene Mai
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`steve.moore@pillsburylaw.com
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`rene.mai@pillsburylaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Terry A. Saad
`Nicholas C. Kliewer
`BRAGALONE CONROY PC
`tsaad@bcpc-law.com
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`3
`
`