`
`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
`
`
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
