`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`
`
` Entered: February 13, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`___________________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and JENNIFER
`S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`CRS Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. (CRS) filed a motion for pro hac
`vice admission of Darrel C. Karl. Paper 22. The motion is unopposed. The
`motion is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice, 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 this proceeding. “Order”; Paper 24.
`In its motion, CRS states that there is good cause for the Board to
`recognize Mr. Karl pro hac vice during this proceeding, since Mr. Karl is an
`experienced litigating attorney with an established familiarity with the
`subject matter at issue in the proceeding. In addition, the motion states that
`Mr. Karl is counsel for CRS in related litigation between CRS and patent
`owner. Mr. Karl made a declaration attesting to, and sufficiently explaining,
`these facts. Paper 23. The declaration1 complies with the requirements set
`forth in the Order.
`Upon consideration, CRS has sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Karl
`has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent CRS in this
`proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for CRS to
`have its related litigation counsel involved in this proceeding. Accordingly,
`CRS has also established that there is good cause for admitting Mr. Karl.
`It is
`ORDERED that the CRS motion for pro hac vice admission of Darrel
`C. Karl for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that CRS is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`
`1 The declaration should have been submitted as an exhibit. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Karl 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`E. Robert Yoches
`Aaron J. Capron
`Darrel C. Karl (pro hac vice)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow
` Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`aaron.capron@finnegan.com
`darrel.karl@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`John P. Donohue, Jr.
`John E. McGlynn
`Woodcock Washburn LLP
`donohue@woodcock.com
`mcglynn@woodcock.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`