Some of you may have read it, however, I havn't noticed any dialog about it on the board..

Notice 21...4-4-16 "ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding and Determination Regarding Patent Owner's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Handal"

"In view of Patent Owner’s revised and unopposed motions, we determine
that Patent Owner has established good cause for the pro hac vice admission of Mr. Handal and, on the basis that Patent Owner continues to have a registered practitioner as lead counsel in these cases, we grant Patent Owner’s motions retroactively such that Mr. Handal’s date of admission is the date of the filing of the original motions, which was July 14, 2015.

In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
Anton Nasri Handal, IPR2015-01470 (Paper 7), IPR2015-01471 (Paper 7), IPR2015-01472 (Paper 7), IPR2015-01473 (Paper 7), IPR2015-01474 (Paper 7), and IPR2015-01475 (Paper 7) are denied, without prejudice to Patent Owner’s re-filing its motions accompanied by corrected declarations;

FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice
admission of Mr. Anton Nasri Handal, IPR2015-01470 (Paper 14), IPR2015-01471 (Paper 14), IPR2015-01472 (Paper 14), IPR2015-01473 (Paper 14), IPR2015-01474 (Paper 14), and IPR2015-01475 (Paper 14) are granted retroactively beginning on July 14, 2015;

FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a registered
practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Handal comply with the Office Patent Trial
Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37,
Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Handal is subject to the Office’s
disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq."

===============================================

I hadn't had a chance to read the PTAB's approval of Handal's exceptance.....In reading it, it's now clear why the PTAB did not act on the origional filings.

Due to improper filing, and issues of the origional "paper 7" documents.

" In the present proceedings, the declarations are defective because they
do not include a statement that “[t]he individual will be subject to the USPTO 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),” as is required. See IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, 3. Instead, the declarations refer to an incorrect section of the Code of Federal Regulations with respect to the disciplinary jurisdiction."

The issue was not the fault of the PTAB, nice to get to the bottom of that problem.

The problems, apparently, were discovered with a conference call initiated by patent owner questioning"what's happening with the motion for acceptance?"

The PTAB is not giving guidance to issues of procedure, however, apparently, they could have denied the original motion on grounds of improper filing back in July.

July to April ....to get that issue on track.

Anyway, think of it as you might, I have my thoughts and I'll keep them to myself.

doni