`Date: June 4, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PHISON ELECTRONICS CORP.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`____________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Decision
`Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jonathan Short and Matthew Sklar
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`
`PNY Technologies, Inc. (“PNY”) filed motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Messrs. Jonathan Short and Matthew Sklar. Papers 17 and 18, respectively.
`The motions are unopposed. For the reasons provided below, PNY’s motions are
`granted.
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro
`hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the
`condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. For example, where the
`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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`admission, the Board also required 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 7
`(referencing the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`IPR2013-00010, at 3-4).
`In its motion regarding Mr. Jonathan Short, PNY asserts that there is good
`cause for Mr. Short’s pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Short is an
`experienced patent litigator with an extensive background in the fields of
`intellectual property and information technology law; (2) he has an established
`familiarity with the subject patent having been co-counsel in a co-pending patent
`litigation; and (3) he has worked closely with the lead and back-up counsel and is
`familiar with the instant petition and it supporting documents. Paper 17 at 2-3. In
`support of the motion, Mr. Short attests to these facts in his declaration with
`sufficient explanations. (Submitted with Paper 17).
`In its motion regarding Mr. Matthew Sklar, PNY asserts that there is good
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`cause for Mr. Sklar’s pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Sklar is an
`experienced patent litigator with an extensive background in the fields of
`intellectual property and information technology law; (2) he has an established
`familiarity with the subject patent having been co-counsel in a co-pending patent
`litigation; and (3) he has worked closely with the lead and back-up counsel and is
`familiar with the instant petition and it supporting documents. Paper 18 at 2-3. In
`support of the motion, Mr. Sklar attests to these facts in his declaration with
`sufficient explanations. (Submitted with Paper 18).
`Based on the record, we find that Messrs. Short and Sklar have sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent PNY in the instant proceeding.
`Accordingly, PNY has established that there is good cause for Messrs. Short and
`Sklar’s admission. Messrs. Short and Sklar will be permitted to appear pro hac
`vice in these proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that PNY’s motions for pro hac vice admission of Messrs. Short
`and Sklar for the instant proceedings are granted; Messrs. Short and Sklar are
`authorized to represent PNY as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that PNY is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Messrs. Short and Sklar 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00472
`Patent 7,518,879
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Mark E. Nikolsky
`Sanjiv M. Chokshi
`McCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
`mnikolsky@mccarter.com
`schokshi@mccarter.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Joshua A. Griswold
`David M. Hoffman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`griswold@fr.com
`hoffman@fr.com
`IPR23490-0008IP1@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.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
