`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 38
`Entered: May 23, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`SIPNET EU S.R.O.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Decision on Motion
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Alan M.
`Fisch. Paper 19. Petitioner did not oppose. The motion is granted.
`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.
`In its motion, Patent Owner states that there is good cause for the Board to
`recognize Mr. Fisch pro hac vice because Mr. Fisch is an experienced litigating
`attorney and a member in good standing of the New York and District of Columbia
`bars. In addition, the motion states that Mr. Fisch has an established familiarity
`with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Fisch has made a
`declaration attesting to, and explaining, these facts. The declaration complies with
`the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Fisch has
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for Patent Owner
`to have Mr. Fisch be involved in this proceeding. Accordingly, Patent Owner has
`established that there is good cause for admitting Mr. Fisch.
`Attention is directed to the Office’s Final Rule adopting new Rules of
`Professional Conduct. See Changes to Representation of Others Before the
`United States Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 20180 (Apr.
`3, 2013). The Final Rule also removes Part 10 of Title 37, Code of Federal
`Regulations. The changes set forth in that Final Rule including the USPTO’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct took effect on May 3, 2013. Therefore, Mr. Fisch is
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct that took effect May 3,
`2013.
`
`It is therefore
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for admission of Alan M. Fisch pro
`hac vice is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fisch 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fisch is subject to the Office’s disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Paul C. Haughey
`Michael T. Morlock
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Patrick J. Lee
`FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER, LLP
`patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`
`
`
`3