`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 23
`Entered: January 25, 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. David Chun
`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. David Chun in each of the proceedings
`identified above. Paper 16 (“Mot.”).2 Petitioner, Comcast Cable
`Communications, LLC, does not oppose these Motions. Mot. 3. 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. Chun pro hac vice in these proceedings. Mot. 2–3.
`Rovi’s assertions in this regard are supported by a Declaration of Mr. Chun.
`Ex. 2011.
`
`
`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. Chun declares that he is a member in good standing of the State
`Bars of California and New York. Ex. 2011 ¶ 2. Mr. Chun 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. Chun’s Declaration comply with all the
`requirements set forth in our representative Order authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 1–9; Mot. 2–3.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Chun 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. Chun in these proceedings.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Rovi’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Mr. David Chun are GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chun 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;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chun 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
`
`
`
`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. Chun 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)
`
`
`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
`
`