`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: January 6, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYANOTECH CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401 and IPR2013-00404 (consolidated)
`
`Patent 5,527,533
`____________
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`On Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro hac vice Recognition of Counsel
`37C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`The University filed a motion for the pro hac vice recognition of
`
`Todd S. Werner and Peter M. Kohlhepp. Paper 19. The motion is unopposed.
`
`Paper 26 at 3. 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. Paper 8 (“Notice”).
`
`In its motion, the University states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp pro hac vice during this proceeding,
`
`because they are counsel in co-pending litigation involving the same patent. Paper
`
`19, 2. The University states that Mark D. Schuman will continue as its lead
`
`counsel. Id. Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp each made a declaration attesting to,
`
`and explaining, these facts. Id. Exs. A, B.1 Each declaration complies with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, we determine that the University has demonstrated that
`
`Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp have sufficient legal and technical qualifications to
`
`represent the University in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that
`
`there is a need for the University to have related litigation counsel involved in this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, the University has also established that there is good
`
`cause for admitting Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp.
`
`It is
`
`
`1 We remind the University that each of its exhibits must be uniquely numbered
`sequentially in the range 2001-2999 and must be appropriately labeled. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`ORDERED that the University’s motion for pro hac vice recognition of
`
`Todd S. Werner and Peter M. Kohlhepp is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the University is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp are 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;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Messrs. Werner and Kohlhepp are 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`
`George E. Darby
`PARADISE PATENT SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Iain A. McIntyre
`CARLSON CASPERS
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`