`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`R2 SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00705, Case IPR2017-00706,
`Case IPR2017-00707, Case IPR2017-00708,
`Case IPR2017-01123, Case IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B21
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE and JENNIFER S. BISK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Shirley X. Li Cantin
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this combined heading in
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705, IPR2017-00706,
`IPR2017-00707, IPR2017-00708,
`IPR2017-01123, IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for pro hac vice
`admission of Shirley X. Li Cantin. Paper 67 (“Mot.”).2 Petitioner provided
`a Declaration of Ms. Cantin in support of the Motion. Ex. 1056. Petitioner
`states that R2 Semiconductor, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) has indicated that it
`does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion. Mot. 1.
`Having reviewed the Motion and the Declaration of Ms. Cantin, we
`conclude that Ms. Cantin has sufficient qualifications to represent Petitioner
`in these proceedings and that Petitioner has shown good cause for Ms.
`Cantin’s pro hac vice admission.3 See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron,
`LLC, IPR2013-00639, Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission, Paper 7 (PTAB October 15, 2003) (setting forth requirements
`for pro hac vice admission). Ms. Cantin is permitted to appear pro hac vice
`in these proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Shirley X. Li Cantin is granted, and Ms. Cantin is authorized to represent
`Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`
`
`2 For expediency, we refer to the papers filed in IPR2017-00705. Petitioner
`filed similar papers in IPR2017-00706, -00707, -00708, -01123, and -01124.
`3 In Paragraph 8 of the Declaration, Ms. Cantin refers to “Part 42 of the
`C.F.R.” Ex. 1056. We assume that she intended to refer to “Part 42 of Title
`37, Code of Federal Regulations.”
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00705, IPR2017-00706,
`IPR2017-00707, IPR2017-00708,
`IPR2017-01123, IPR2017-01124
`Patent 8,233,250 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Cantin 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
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Cantin is subject to the USPTO’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Donald Steinberg
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`James Glass
`John McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`jimglass@quinnemanuel.com
`johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com
`
`3
`
`