`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 36
`Entered: August 22, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MASABI LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BYTEMARK, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BARRY L. GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Dariush Keyhani
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`
`On February 8, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Motion for admission pro hac
`vice of Dariush Keyhani. Paper 14. Patent Owner also filed a Declaration of Mr.
`Keyhani in support of the Motion. Ex. 2004. Patent Owner attests that Petitioner
`does not oppose the Motion. Paper 14, 1. For the reasons provided below, Patent
`Owner’s Motion is granted.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board 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. In its notice authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission, the Board requires a statement of facts showing there is
`good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. 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”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Mr. Keyhani has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding, that Mr. Keyhani has
`demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding, and
`that Patent Owner’s intent to be represented by counsel with litigation experience
`is warranted. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac
`vice admission of Mr. Keyhani. Mr. Keyhani will be permitted to serve as back-up
`counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`Dariush Keyhani is granted;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Keyhani is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Keyhani is to comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth
`in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Keyhani shall be subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven (7) business days of the date of
`this Order, Patent Owner must submit a Power of Attorney for Mr. Keyhani in this
`proceeding in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall file an updated Mandatory
`Notice in this proceeding in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), identifying
`Mr. Keyhani as back-up counsel.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01449
`Patent 8,494,967 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Douglas P. LaLone
`Thomas E. Donohue
`FISHMAN STEWART PLLC
`DLalone@fishstewip.com
`TDonohue@fishstewip.com
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Jennifer Meredith
`MEREDITH & KEYHANI, PLLC
`jmeredith@meredithkeyhani.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
