`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 31
`
`Entered: November 14, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN and PATRICK M. BOUCHER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Joshua M. Ryland
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Joshua M. Ryland
`in this proceeding. Paper 29 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Petitioner represents that
`Patent Owner does not oppose the Motion. Mot. 1. The Motion is granted.
`In its Motion, Petitioner states that there is good cause to recognize Mr.
`Ryland during this proceeding because “Mr. Ryland is an experienced intellectual
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`property litigation attorney” having “more than fifteen years of patent litigation
`experience,” and because “Mr. Ryland is counsel for Hytera in several
`corresponding patent disputes relating to the subject matter the Petition, including
`counsel of record in the co-pending patent litigation matter, Hytera
`Communications Corp. Ltd. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. (N.D. Ohio, Case No. 1-
`17-cv-01794).” Mot. 3. The Motion includes, as an exhibit, a Declaration made
`by Mr. Ryland, attesting to and sufficiently explaining these facts. Ex. 1021. In
`his Declaration, Mr. Ryland “agree[s] to be subject to the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
`et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).” Ex. 1021, 3.
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated adequately that Mr. Ryland
`has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this
`proceeding.
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion seeking admission Pro Hac Vice for
`Joshua M. Ryland is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file updated Mandatory Notices
`identifying Joshua M. Ryland as back-up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ryland shall comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`Part 42 of 37 C.F.R., and is subject to the Office’s Code of Professional
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); and;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding; Mr. Ryland is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-02183
`Patent 8,279,991 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Robert Yoches
`Rachel L. Emsley
`David C. Reese
`Yanbin Xu, Ph.D.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`rachel.emsley@finnegan.com
`david.reese@finnegan.com
`yanbin.xu@finnegan.com
`
`Todd R. Tucker
`Mark W. McDougall
`Joshua M. Ryland
`Kyle T. Deighan
`Joshua A. Friedman
`Yizhou Liu
`Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP
`ttucker@calfee.com
`mmcdougall@calfee.com
`jryland@calfee.com
`kdeighan@calfee.com
`jfriedman@calfee.com
`bliu@calfee.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jon R. Carter
`Eugene Goryunov
`Michael W. De Vries
`Akshay S. Deoras
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`jon.carter@kirkland.com
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.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
