`
`
` Entered: February 14, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Frontline Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Frontline Technologies, Inc. (Frontline) filed a motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission of R. Scott Tewes. Paper 25. 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, Frontline states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Tewes pro hac vice during this proceeding, since Mr. Tewes
`
`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. Tewes is counsel for Frontline in related litigation between Frontline
`
`and petitioner. Mr. Tewes made a declaration attesting to, and sufficiently
`
`explaining, these facts. Paper 26. The declaration1 complies with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Order.
`
`Upon consideration, Frontline has sufficiently demonstrated that
`
`Mr. Tewes has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`
`Frontline in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a
`
`need for Frontline to have its related litigation counsel involved in this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Frontline has also established that there is good
`
`cause for admitting Mr. Tewes.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Frontline motion for pro hac vice admission of R.
`
`Scott Tewes for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Frontline is to continue to have a
`
`
`1 The declaration should have been submitted as an exhibit. 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.63.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2012-00005
`Patent 6,675,151
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Tewes 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).
`
`3
`
`
`
`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
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
