Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 19
`Entered: January 24, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
` IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
` IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Henry Y. Huang
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all three cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 19
`Entered: January 24, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
` IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
` IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Henry Y. Huang
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue that is identical in all three cases. We, therefore,
`exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi”), filed a Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Henry Y. Huang in each of the proceedings
`identified above. Paper 18 (“Mot.”).2 Petitioner, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, does not oppose these Motions. Mot. 2. For the
`reasons provided below, Rovi’s Motions are granted.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to
`the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`In these proceedings, lead counsel for Rovi, Mr. Mark D. Rowland, is
`a registered practitioner. Paper 4, 4. Rovi asserts that there is good cause
`for us to recognize Mr. Huang pro hac vice in these proceedings. Mot. 2.
`Rovi’s assertions in this regard are supported by a Declaration of
`Mr. Huang. Ex. 2013.
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to the papers filed in Case IPR2017-
`01065. Similar papers were filed in Cases IPR2017-01066 and IPR2017-
`01143.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`
`
`Mr. Huang declares that he is a member in good standing of the State
`Bars of California and the District of Columbia, and that he is admitted to
`practice before several federal courts. Ex. 2013 ¶ 3. Mr. Huang also
`declares that he is familiar with the subject matter at issue in these
`proceedings, and Rovi has requested that he represent it in these
`proceedings. Id. ¶ 10. Moreover, the facts alleged in Mr. Huang’s
`Declaration comply with all the requirements set forth in our representative
`Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 1, 2,
`4–9; Mot. 2.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Huang has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Rovi in these proceedings. Accordingly,
`Rovi has established that there is good cause for the pro hac vice admission
`of Mr. Huang in these proceedings.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Rovi’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Mr. Henry Y. Huang are GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Huang is authorized to represent
`Rovi as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Rovi is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Huang shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), and the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Huang shall be subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the
`Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
`et seq.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01065 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01066 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`IPR2017-01143 (Patent 8,046,801 B2)
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Frederic M. Meeker
`Bradley C. Wright
`Scott M. Kelly
`Azuka C. Dike
`Joshua Davenport
`Jared Radkiewicz
`Camille Sauer
`BANNER AND WITCOFF, LTD.
`fmeeker@bannerwitcoff.com
`bwright@bannerwitcoff.com
`skelly@bannerwitcoff.com
`adike@bannerwitcoff.com
`jdavenport@bannerwitcoff.com
`jradkiewicz@bannerwitcoff.com
`csauer@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark D. Rowland
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Scott A. McKeown
`James R. Batchelder
`Scott S. Taylor
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Mark.Rowland@ropesgray.com
`Gabrielle.Higgins@ropesgray.com
`Scott.McKeown@ropesgray.com
`James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Scott.Taylor@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
