`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 07
`
`
`Entered: October 23, 2012
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`LKQ CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Patent of CLEARLAMP, LLC
`Patent OWNER
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`_______________
`
`
`SALLY C. MEDLEY Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER – AUTHORIZING MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`
`LKQ Corporation (LKQ) requests authorization to file a motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission of Heather Boice. (Petition at 2:11-12.)
`Section 42.10(c) provides that:
`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. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel
`who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`The Board authorizes both parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the
`“ORDER – AUTHORIZING MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION” in
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT), a copy of which is attached to this Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sally C. Medley/
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`Alan L. Barry
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel: 312.807.4438
`Fax: 312.827.8196
`E-mail: alan.barry@klgates.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00020
`Patent 7,297,364
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Matthew L. Cutler
`Douglas A. Robinson
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
`7700 Bonhomme Avenue
`Suite 400
`Clayton, MO 63105
`Tel: 314.726.7500
`Fax: 314.726.7501
`E-Mail: stldocket@hdp.com
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 6
`
`Entered: October 15, 2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Patent of MICHAEL ARNOUSE
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT)
`Patent 7,516,484
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JAMES DONALD SMITH, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, JAMES T.
`MOORE, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge, MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Lead
`Administrative Patent Judge,1 and JAMESON LEE, SALLY G. LANE, SALLY C.
`MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and BRIAN J.
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TIERNEY, Lead Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER – AUTHORIZING MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 Judge Tierney serves as lead judge of the Board’s Trial Section.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC (“Motorola”) has requested that the Board
`
`authorize a motion for pro hac vice admission. Petition, Paper 2 at 2. Specifically,
`
`Motorola requests that the Board authorize a motion for Steven D. Moore to appear
`
`pro hac vice. According to Motorola, Mr. Moore is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney and is familiar with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding as Mr.
`
`Moore is lead counsel in a concurrent litigation involving the same patent as that
`
`challenged in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 42.10(c) of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) provides that:
`
`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. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel
`who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`The Board authorizes both parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) as follows:
`
` 1.
`
`
`
`Time for Filing
`
`The time for filing pro hac vice motions is no sooner than twenty one (21)
`
`days after service of the petition, which is the time for filing patent owner
`
`mandatory notices. Parties seeking to oppose a motion for pro hac vice admission
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`must file their opposition no later than one week after the filing of the underlying
`
`motion. No reply to any opposition shall be filed unless authorized by the Board.
`
` 2.
`
` A
`
`
`
`Content of Motion
`
`motion for pro hac vice admission must:
`
`a.
`
`Contain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board
`
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding.
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual
`
`seeking to appear attesting to the following:
`
`
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`
`
`ii. No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v. The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`
`vi. The individual will be subject to the USPTO 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);
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual
`
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
` c.
`
`Where the affiant or declarant is unable to provide any of the
`
`information requested above in part 2(b) or make any of the required statements or
`
`representations under oath, the individual should provide a full explanation of the
`
`circumstances as part of the affidavit or declaration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00010
`Patent 7,516,484
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ko-Fang Chang
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`1080 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`IP GROUP OF DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`One Liberty Place
`1650 Market St., Suite 4900
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`