`
`Trials @uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: August 21, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MAXELL, LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00233
`Patent 6,754,440 B2
`____________
`
`Before MINN CHUNG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission
`of Jamie B. Beaber Pro Hac Vice
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00233
`Patent 6,754,440 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jamie B.
`Beaber under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Paper 8 (“Motion”). The Motion is
`supported by a Declaration from Mr. Beaber. Ex. 2004. Petitioner has not
`filed an opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion.
`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. In
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`moving party to provide 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 the 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. Beaber has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these proceedings, that
`Mr. Beaber has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of
`this proceeding, and that Patent Owner’s intent to include counsel from the
`corresponding district court litigation is warranted. See Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 8–9.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Beaber. Mr. Beaber will be permitted to serve as back-up
`counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Patent Owner provides a Power of Attorney for all Practitioners
`associated with Customer Number 26565. Paper 4. Mr. Beaber, however, is
`not associated with Customer Number 26565. Accordingly, Patent Owner
`must submit a Power of Attorney for Mr. Beaber in accordance with
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00233
`Patent 6,754,440 B2
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), and must update its mandatory notices as required by
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3).
`
`It is therefore:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission
`of Jamie B. Beaber is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Beaber is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel only in this proceeding, and that Patent
`Owner is to continue to have a registered practitioner represent it as lead
`counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) business days of the date
`of this order, Patent Owner must submit a Power of Attorney for Mr. Beaber
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file updated
`mandatory notices identifying Mr. Beaber as back-up counsel in accordance
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Beaber 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; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Beaber is to 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00233
`Patent 6,754,440 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`David Garr
`Greg Discher
`Anupam Sharma
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`dgarr@cov.com
`gdischer@cov.com
`asharma@cov.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Robert Pluta
`Amanda Bonner
`Saqib Siddiqui
`Bryan Nese
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.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
