`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`CRS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`Patent of FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`______________
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`OF R. SCOTT TEWES
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`I. Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10, Patent Owner Frontline Technologies, Inc. requests
`
`that the Board admit R. Scott Tewes pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Statement of Facts Showing There is Good Cause for the Board to
`Recognize Counsel Pro Hac Vice During the Proceeding
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board 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 and to any other conditions as the
`
`Board may impose. Section 42.10(c) indicates that, “where lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice may be granted upon a
`
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” The facts here
`
`establish good cause for the Board to recognize R. Scott Tewes pro hac vice during
`
`this proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel, John P. Donohue, is a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Counsel, R. Scott Tewes, is an experienced litigating attorney and has
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`
`
`an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Accompanying this motion is the Declaration of R. Scott Tewes in Support of
`
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Tewes Declaration”). In the Tewes
`
`Declaration, Mr. Tewes states, inter alia, that: “I am a member in good standing of
`
`the South Carolina Bar, the State Bar of Georgia, and The District of Columbia Bar
`
`and am also admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. I am currently
`
`admitted to practice pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Pennsylvania. I have been in private practice since 1983, and have litigated
`
`many civil cases since that time, including a number involving patent
`
`infringement.” Tewes Declaration at ¶ 2.
`
`3. Mr. Tewes also states that: “I am very familiar with the subject matter
`
`at issue in this proceeding. I am counsel for Plaintiff Frontline Technologies, Inc.
`
`in the Frontline Technologies, Inc. v. CRS, Inc. patent infringement litigation, Civil
`
`Action No. 2:07-cv-2457 (E.D. Pa.), which involves the same patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Since that lawsuit was filed in 2007, I have been involved in the day-
`
`to-day management and conduct of that litigation for my client. I have drafted
`
`portions of many of the substantive papers filed in that litigation, defended
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`depositions of Frontline’s witnesses and experts, and personally deposed CRS
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`witnesses and experts.” Id. at ¶ 10.
`
`4.
`
`In the Tewes Declaration, Mr. Tewes attests, inter alia, that he has
`
`read and will comply with Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials, and agrees to be subject to the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office 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). Tewes
`
`Declaration at ¶ 7-8.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner, Frontline Technologies, Inc., respectfully
`
`requests that the Board admit R. Scott Tewes pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2013
`
`By:
`
`/John P. Donohue, Jr./
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John P. Donohue, Jr., Reg. No. 29,916
`Woodcock Washburn, LLP
`Cira Centre – 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: 215.568.3100
`Fax: 215.568.3439
`Email: donohue@woodcock.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Frontline
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, John P. Donohue, Jr., hereby certify that on this 1st day of February, 2013,
`the foregoing PATENT OWNER FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF R. SCOTT TEWES and
`DECLARATION OF R. SCOTT TEWES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, were served electronically via email on the
`following counsel of record for Petitioner CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc.:
`E. Robert Yoches, Esquire
`Reg. No. 30,120
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4113
`Email: bob.yoches@finnegan.com
`
`Aaron J. Capron, Esquire
`Reg. No. 56,170
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4113
`Email: aaron.capron@finnegan.com
`
`Darrel C. Karl, Esquire
`Pro Hac Vice
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-4113
`Email: darrel.karl@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`/John P. Donohue, Jr./
` John P. Donohue, Jr.
` Reg. No. 29,916
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`Attorney Docket No. FPT-L6
`
`
`
`
`
` Woodcock Washburn, LLP
` Cira Centre – 12th Floor
` 2929 Arch Street
` Philadelphia, PA 19103
` Phone: 215.564.8367
` Fax: 215.568.3439
` Email: donohue@woodcock.com
`
` Attorney for Frontline Technologies, Inc.
`
`6