`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 35
`Entered: April 28, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
` DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of K. Patrick Herman
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788 B2
`
`
`On April 25, 2014, Petitioner (“Toyota”) filed a motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission of K. Patrick Herman. Paper 33. The motion indicates that it
`
`is unopposed by Patent Owner. Id.
`
`
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding
`
`upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). If lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be permitted to appear pro
`
`hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney
`
`and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.” Id.
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Toyota is A. Antony Pfeffer, a
`
`registered practitioner. Toyota’s motion relies on a declaration of K. Patrick
`
`Herman (Ex. 1018). Mr. Herman declares that he is a member in good
`
`standing of the Bar of New York. Ex. 1018 ¶ 1. Mr. Herman also declares
`
`that he has never been suspended, disbarred, sanctioned or cited for
`
`contempt by any court or administrative body, and that he has never had an
`
`application for admission to practice denied by any court or administrative
`
`body. Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 2-4. Mr. Herman further declares that he is familiar with
`
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding based on his work as counsel
`
`for Toyota in the related district court litigation between the parties
`
`involving Patent 8,019,501: American Vehicular Sciences LLC v. Toyota
`
`Motor Corp. et al., No. 6:12-CV-405 (E.D. Tex.). Ex. 1018 ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`Mr. Herman further states (1) that he has read and will comply with
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37,
`
`Code of Federal Regulations, as well as the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, and (2) that he agrees to be subject to the “United States Patent and
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00414
`Patent 7,630,802 B2
`
`Trademark Office Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).”
`
`Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`
`
`Based on the foregoing, we determine that Toyota has established
`
`good cause for admission, pro hac vice, of Mr. K. Patrick Herman.
`
`
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Toyota’s motion for pro hac vice admission of K.
`
`Patrick Herman is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Herman is authorized to represent
`
`Petitioner only as backup counsel;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Herman is subject to the USPTO’s
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00414
`Patent 7,630,802 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`
`A. Antony Pfeffer
`Thomas R. Makin
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`apfeffer@kenyon.com
`tmakin@kenyon.com
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`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
