Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 37
`Entered: August 4, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`CONOPCO, INC. D/B/A UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569)
` IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Thomas R. Goots
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300)
`
`Patent Owner, The Procter & Gamble Company, (“Patent Owner”), timely
`filed Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Thomas R. Goots pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c) (Papers 27, 30), accompanied by Affidavits of Thomas R. Goots
`in support of the Motions (Exs. 2010).2 Petitioner does not oppose the Motions.
`For the reasons provided below, Patent Owner’s Motions are granted.
`As set forth in § 42.10(c), we 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. In its Motions, Patent Owner asserts that there
`is good cause for Mr. Goots’ pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Goots is an
`experienced patent litigation attorney; and (2) Mr. Goots has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the instant proceedings. Papers 27,
`30, 3–6. Specifically, Mr. Goots has reviewed in detail U.S. Patent Nos. 6,974,569
`and 6,451,300, as well as the Exhibits relied upon by Petitioner in each proceeding.
`Id. at 5–6. He also has engaged in strategic and substantive discussions regarding
`these proceedings with lead counsel for Patent Owner, and is counsel of record in
`litigation involving the ’569 and ’300 patents pending before the U.S. District
`Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-732-TSB. Id. at
`5–6. In support of the Motion, Mr. Goots attests to these facts in his Affidavits.
`Exs. 2010, ¶¶ 4, 11-12. In addition, Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David Maiorana,
`is a registered practitioner. Papers 27, 30 at 3; Exhibits 2010, ¶ 3.
`Based on the facts set forth above, we conclude that Mr. Goots has sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding and
`that the criteria for pro hac vice admission are satisfied. See Unified Patents, Inc.
`
`2 All references to the papers refer to the proceedings in numerical order; i.e., the
`first paper number refers to the paper number in IPR2013-00505, the second paper
`number refers to the paper number in IPR2013-00509.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300)
`
`v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7)
`(expanded panel), slip. op. at 3, (superseding “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission” entered in IPR2013-00010, Paper 6, dated October 15, 2012,
`and setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission). Accordingly,
`Patent Owner has established good cause for Mr. Goots’ pro hac vice admission.
`Mr. Goots will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the instant proceedings as
`back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`
`Thomas R. Goots for the instant proceedings is granted; Mr. Goots is authorized to
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Goots is to comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Goots is to be 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. §§ 11.101-11.901.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00505 (Patent 6,974,569)
`IPR2013-00509 (Patent 6,451,300)
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Joseph Meara
`jmeara-PGP@foley.com
`
`Michael Houston
`mhouston@foley.com
`
`Jeanne Gills
`jmgills@foley.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`David Maiorana
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`John Biernacki
`jvbiernacki@jonesday.com
`
`Michael Weinstein
`msweinstein@jonesday.com
`
`Steven Miller
`miller.sw@pg.com
`
`Kim Zerby
`zerby.kw@pg.com
`
`Carl Roof
`roof.cj@pg.com
`
`Angela Haughey
`haughey.a@pg.com
`
`Calvin Griffith
`cpgriffith@jonesday.com
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`