`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TWILIO INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01688
`Patent 9,300,792 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jay B. Schiller
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01688
`Patent 9,300,792 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion requesting pro hac vice admission of Jay
`
`B. Schiller, and provided an Affidavit from Mr. Schiller in support of the
`
`request. Paper 12 (“Mot.”).1 Petitioner’s lead counsel, Wayne O. Stacy, is a
`
`registered practitioner. Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the
`
`Motion. Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and Affidavit, we
`
`conclude that Petitioner has established good cause for Mr. Schiller’s pro
`
`hac vice admission. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c); Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`
`2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`
`We note, however, that the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct are set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901, and it is those rules to which
`
`Mr. Schiller will be subject. See Mot. ¶ 10 (citing “37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20
`
`et seq.”).
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of Jay
`
`B. Schiller is granted, and Mr. Schiller is authorized to represent Petitioner
`
`as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Schiller 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
`
`
`1 Petitioner filed the Motion and Affidavit as a single paper in the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) system. The parties are
`reminded that affidavits and declarations must be filed as exhibits so that
`they may be referenced individually by exhibit number. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01688
`Patent 9,300,792 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Schiller is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901 and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01688
`Patent 9,300,792 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Wayne O. Stacy
`Eliot D. Williams
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jesse Camacho
`Elena McFarland
`Ryan Dykal
`Christine Guastello
`Mary Peal
`Amy Foust
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`jcamacho@shb.com
`emcfarland@shb.com
`rdykal@shb.com
`cguastello@shb.com
`telesignipr@shb.com
`afoust@shb.com
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
