`571.272.7822
`
` Paper No. 23
`
`
` Entered: November 2, 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 IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Akshay S. Deoras
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Akshay S. Deoras in this proceeding. Paper 20 (“Motion”). Patent Owner
`represents that Petitioner does not oppose the motion. Id. at 1. Patent
`Owner’s Motion is granted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In its motion, Patent Owner states that there is good cause to
`recognize Mr. Deoras during this proceeding because “Mr. Deoras is an
`experienced litigator” having “more than 9 years of patent litigation
`experience,” and because “[h]e is counsel for Motorola in the co-pending
`district court action related to this patent (Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera
`Communications Corp. Ltd., Hytera America, Inc., and Hytera
`Communications America (West), Inc., Case No. 17-cv-1972) and counsel in
`a manner before the International Trade Commission between the same
`parties (In the Matter of Certain Two-Way Radio Equipment and Systems,
`Related Software, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1053).” Id. at
`3–4, 6. The Motion includes, as an exhibit, a Declaration made by
`Mr. Deoras, attesting to and sufficiently explaining these facts. Ex. 2015. In
`addition, Mr. Deoras acknowledges his understanding that he “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).” Id. at 4.
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`Mr. Deoras has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion seeking admission Pro Hac
`Vice of Akshay S. Deoras is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`Mr. Deoras is authorized to represent Patent Owner only as back-up counsel
`in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must submit a Power of
`Attorney for Akshay S. Deoras in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file updated
`Mandatory Notices identifying Akshay S. Deoras as back-up counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Deoras shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), 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 USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq and the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00176
`Patent 6,591,111 B1
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Todd R. Tucker
`Mark W. McDougall
`Joshua A. Friedman
`CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
`ttucker@calfee.com
`mmcdougall@calfee.com
`jfriedman@calfee.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jon R. Carter
`Eugene Goryunov
`Akshay S. Deoras
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`carterj@kirkland.com
`egoryunov@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
