`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 36
`Entered: September 13, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ABB, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Case IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` .
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00062
`IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`This Order is entered to clarify two issues relating to pro hac vice
`
`
`
`appearances in these proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. 42.10 (c).
`
`
`
`1. Petitioner has filed a motion to recognize Mr. Steven M. Auvil pro hac
`
`vice. Paper 34. The supporting affidavit establishes that Mr. Auvil is admitted to
`
`practice before the USPTO. Ex. 1031. In view of this representation, there was no
`
`need to seek pro hac vice recognition for Mr. Auvil as he is a registered
`
`practitioner. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c) (“ . . . 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.”) Petitioner’s motion is, therefore,
`
`dismissed as moot.
`
`
`
`2. Patent Owner’s counsel contacted the Board, first by telephone and then
`
`by email, requesting guidance on whether an attorney who is admitted to practice
`
`before the USPTO could participate in a deposition in this proceeding. The
`
`communications were apparently ex parte, as there is no indication Patent Owner
`
`copied Petitioner’s counsel on the email, despite being requested to do so. The
`
`parties are reminded that ex parte communications with the Board are prohibited
`
`except in very limited circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d); Office Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48758 (August 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`For guidance on the deposition issue, the parties are directed to the
`
`“Frequently Asked Questions” section of the Board’s web site:
`
`
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`
`Question G11 specifically addresses this issue and provides that a registered
`
`USPTO practitioner or attorney recognized pro hac vice in a proceeding may
`
`participate in a deposition.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00062
`IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice recognition of
`
`Mr. Auvil is dismissed as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00062
`IPR2013-00282
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner:
`
`Rick McLeod
`John Vandenberg
`Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner:
`
`Richard Black
`Joel Arb
`Foster Pepper, LLC
`blacr@foster.com
`ardjo@foster.com
`
`
`
`
`4