`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 17
`
` Date Entered: Aug, 1, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________
`____
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILITY WORKX, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01150
`Patent 8,213,417 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM M. FINK, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Hunter Horton
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01150
`Patent 8,213,417 B2
`
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice of Hunter Horton. Paper 14. Petitioner asserts it will continue to
`have a registered practitioner as lead counsel. Id. at 2. Petitioner states that
`Patent Owner, Mobility Workx, LLC, does not oppose the motion. Id. at 2–
`3.
`
`Petitioner asserts there is good cause to recognize Mr. Horton pro hac
`vice in this proceeding. Id. Petitioner’s assertions in this regard are
`supported by the Declaration of Mr. Horton. Ex. 1011. We determine
`Petitioner has established that there is good cause for the pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Horton in this proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c); see
`also Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Order
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, Paper 7 (October 15,
`2003) (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice admission).1
`We note that Petitioner has already filed a Power of Attorney in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) for Mr. Horton. Paper 1. In addition,
`Mr. Horton was listed in the mandatory notice under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`included with the Petition. Paper 2, 57–58.
`It is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion (Paper 14) seeking admission
`Pro Hac Vice for Hunter Horton is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Horton shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, including August 2018 and July 2019 Updates,
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title
`37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`
`1 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-
`patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01150
`Patent 8,213,417 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Horton is subject to the USPTO’s
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to
`the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding; Mr.
`Horton is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01150
`Patent 8,213,417 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric Buresh
`Jason R. Mudd
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`jason.mudd@eriseip.com
`
`Ashraf Fawzy
`Roshan Mansinghani
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`afawzy@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`