`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 7
`Entered: July 12, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, and
`TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`MOTION TO WITHDRAW
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e)
`
`Patent Owner has filed a motion to authorize withdrawal of its current
`
`
`
`counsel, Michael R. Casey and J. Scott Davidson. Paper 6. No opposition has been
`
`filed. For the following reasons the motion is granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Counsel may withdraw from an inter partes review proceeding only with
`
`
`
`authorization from the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e). Normally, this is
`
`accomplished by filing a motion to withdraw, which requires Board authorization
`
`before filing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b). Once authorization is granted, the motion
`
`is then made by the attorneys seeking to withdraw. See, e.g., Case IPR2013-00010,
`
`Paper 30.
`
`
`
`Here, the motion to withdraw was filed by the Patent Owner, Innovative
`
`Communications Technologies, Inc. The motion was not authorized in advance by
`
`the Board. It was accompanied by a new power of attorney that revoked the
`
`previous power of attorney and appointed new attorneys (Ex. 2001). The motion
`
`was signed by substitute counsel rather than withdrawing counsel.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has not followed the correct procedure. However, because
`
`there is no prejudice shown, the Board will waive the requirement for authorization
`
`and treat the motion as if it were filed by withdrawing counsel. Patent Owner is
`
`instructed to seek Board authorization where required for any further motions filed
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Turning to the merits, the motion designates substitute counsel who is a
`
`registered practitioner and does not seek any time extensions. Under the
`
`circumstances we see no reason to deny the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It is therefore
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 6) is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael R. Casey and J. Scott Davidson are
`
`permitted to withdraw as counsel in this proceeding;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patrick J. Lee is recognized as Lead Counsel
`
`for Patent Owner;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall have five days from the
`
`entry date of this order to designate back-up counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a));
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that in further filings in this proceeding Patent
`
`Owner shall observe the requirement for Board approval set forth in 37 C.F.R.§
`
`42.20(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00246
`Patent 6,108,704
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Paul C. Haughey
`Michael T. Morlock
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP
`phaughey@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Patrick J. Lee
`FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER LLP
`patrick.lee@fischllp.com
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDY, LLP
`4300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
`Arlington, VA 22203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
