`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
`
`
`