`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 12
`
`Entered: 2 April 2013
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CHI MEI INNOLUX CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`Patent OWNER
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00038
`Patent 7,956,978 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Chi Mei Innolux Corporation (CMI) filed a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Stanley M. Gibson. Paper 11. The motion is unopposed. The motion
`
`is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00038
`Patent 7,956,978 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`“Notice”; Paper 3.
`
`In its motion, CMI states that there is good cause for the Board to recognize
`
`Mr. Gibson pro hac vice during this proceeding, since Mr. Gibson 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. Gibson is counsel for CMI
`
`in related litigation between CMI and the patent owner. Mr. Gibson made a
`
`declaration attesting to, and sufficiently explaining, these facts, which is attached to
`
`the motion. The declaration1 complies with the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, CMI has sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Gibson has
`
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent CMI in this proceeding.
`
`Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for CMI to have its related
`
`litigation counsel involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, CMI has also
`
`established that there is good cause for admitting Mr. Gibson.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the CMI motion for pro hac vice admission of Stanley M.
`
`Gibson for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that CMI 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00038
`Patent 7,956,978 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Gibson 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:
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Gregory S. Cordery
`OBLON, SPIVAK, McCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eric J. Robinson
`Sean C. Flood
`ROBINSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OFFICE, P.C.
`erobinson@riplo.com
`sflood@riplo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`