`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 15
`Date: September 1, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`VMWARE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00470
`Patent 7,949,752 B2
`____________
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Michael R. Rueckheim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00470
`Patent 7,949,752 B2
`
`
`VMware, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Michael R. Rueckheim in the above-listed proceeding
`(“Motion”). Paper 12 (“Mot.”). Petitioner also filed a declaration from
`Mr. Rueckheim in support of the Motion (“Declaration”). Ex. 1028. Patent
`Owner does not oppose the motion. Mot. 1.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel pro hac
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the
`condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. Good cause may be
`shown, for example, by establishing that counsel is an experienced litigating
`attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`the proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). A motion for pro hac vice admission
`must contain a statement of facts establishing good cause and must be
`accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7 at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (setting forth the requirements for pro
`hac vice admission).
`Petitioner’s lead counsel, Katherine A. Vidal, is a registered
`practitioner. Mot. 1. Regarding the required showing of good cause,
`Petitioner asserts that Mr. Rueckheim is an experienced litigating attorney
`and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`proceeding. Id. at 1–2. More specifically, Mr. Rueckheim states that he has
`“obtained substantial familiarity with the involved patent, the prior art, and
`the various issues raised in this proceeding.” Ex. 1028 ¶ 9.
`Mr. Rueckheim’s Declaration also complies with the other requirements for
`pro hac vice admission. See id. ¶¶ 1–7; Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3–4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00470
`Patent 7,949,752 B2
`
`
`Having reviewed Mr. Rueckheim’s Declaration, we determine that
`Petitioner has shown good cause for Mr. Rueckheim’s pro hac vice
`admission in this proceeding. Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is:
`ORDERED that the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Michael
`R. Rueckheim is granted, and Mr. Rueckheim is authorized to represent
`Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file an updated
`mandatory notice identifying Mr. Rueckheim as back-up counsel in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Rueckheim shall comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)),
`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. Rueckheim 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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00470
`Patent 7,949,752 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Katherine Vidal
`Louis Campbell
`Michael Tomasulo
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`kvidal@winston.com
`llcampbell@winston.com
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Byron Pickard
`Daniel Block
`Lestin Kenton
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`bpickard-ptab@sternekessler.com
`dblock-ptab@sternekessler.com
`lkenton-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`James Hietala
`Russell Rigby
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
`jhietala@intven.com
`rrigby@intven.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
