`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 36
`Entered: September 24, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`CENTRAL SECURITY GROUP – NATIONWIDE, INC.,1
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UBIQUITOUS CONNECTIVITY, LP,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-01335 (Patent 8,064,935 B2)
` IPR2019-01336 (Patent 9,062,655 B2)2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
`MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Anita M. C. Spieth
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc., who filed petitions in IPR2019-
`01609 and IPR2019-01610 has been joined as a petitioner, respectively, to
`IPR2019-01335 and IPR2019-01336.
`2 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01335 (Patent 8,064,935 B2)
`IPR2019-01336 (Patent 9,062,655 B2)
`
`Petitioner Central Security Group – Nationwide, Inc (“CSG”) has
`filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Anita M. C. Spieth in each of
`these proceedings. See Paper 33.3 The motion is supported by a declaration
`from Ms. Spieth. Ex. 1047. We have reviewed CSG’s motion and Ms.
`Spieth’s declaration, and determine that the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10 have been met and there is good cause to admit Ms. Spieth pro hac
`vice.
`
`ORDER
`
`It is therefore
`ORDERED that CSG’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Anita
`M. C. Spieth in each of these proceedings is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Spieth is authorized to appear as
`back-up counsel for CSG in these proceedings, but may not act as lead
`counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that CSG is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in each of these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Spieth 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, as updated by
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, July 2019 Update (84 Federal
`Register 33,925 (July 16, 2019)) and August 2018 Update (83 Federal
`Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018)); and
`
`
`3 Unless indicated otherwise, we refer to the papers filed in IPR2019-01335.
`Similar papers were filed in IPR2019-01336.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01335 (Patent 8,064,935 B2)
`IPR2019-01336 (Patent 9,062,655 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Spieth 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
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01335 (Patent 8,064,935 B2)
`IPR2019-01336 (Patent 9,062,655 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Benjamin Pleune
`Christopher T.L. Douglas
`Adam J. Doane
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`ben.pleune@alston.com
`christopher.douglas@alston.com
`adam.doane@alston.com
`
`Stephanie L. Schonewald
`Peter A. Flynn
`Anita M. C. Spieth
`CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP
`sschonewald@choate.com
`pflynn@choate.com
`aspieth@choate.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Cortney S. Alexander
`Daniel A. Kent
`KENT & RISLEY LLC
`cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com
`dankent@kentrisley.com
`
`
`4
`
`