`571-272-7822 Date: October 16, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`BUTAMAX ADVANCED BIOFUELS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GEVO, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00539
`Patent 8,273,565 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Patent Owner, Gevo, Inc., filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`
`
`Brett Lund, its Chief Licensing Officer and General Counsel. Paper 26, “Mot.” In
`
`the Motion, Gevo states that it conferred with Petitioner, Butamax Advanced
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00539
`Patent 8,273,565 B2
`
`
`Biofuels LLC, who does not oppose the Motion. For the reasons provided below,
`
`
`
`Gevo’s 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, subject to the condition
`
`that lead counsel be a registered practitioner and to any other conditions as the
`
`Board may impose.” The Rule provides, as an example of a situation in which
`
`granting a motion to appear pro hac vice may be appropriate, “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). The Board
`
`previously authorized Gevo to file a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr.
`
`Lund, and directed Gevo to the requirements set forth in Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7). Paper
`
`25, 3.
`
`In its motion, Gevo states that there is good cause for the Board to recognize
`
`Mr. Lund pro hac vice during this proceeding, because he is General Counsel of
`
`Gevo, has “significant” experience with litigation involving intellectual property,
`
`and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this inter
`
`partes review. Paper 26, 2. Mr. Lund made a declaration attesting to, and
`
`explaining, these facts. Ex. 2002. Mr. Lund also states that, in his capacity as
`
`Chief Licensing Officer and General Counsel for Gevo, he has become “acutely
`
`familiar” with Gevo’s patent portfolio, including the technical subject matter and
`
`prior art involved with U.S. Patent No. 8,273,565. Id. ¶¶ 7–8.
`
`Mr. Lund affirms that he has read and will comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part
`
`42 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and agrees to be subject to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00539
`Patent 8,273,565 B2
`
`
`USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`
`
`
`seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. ¶¶ 13–14.
`
`Upon consideration, the Board recognizes that there is a legitimate need for
`
`Gevo to be represented at the upcoming oral hearing in this inter partes review.
`
`Gevo has demonstrated that Mr. Lund has sufficient legal and technical
`
`qualifications to represent it in this proceeding. Accordingly, Gevo has established
`
`that there is good cause for Mr. Lund’s admission. Mr. Lund will be permitted to
`
`appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only, and will be
`
`permitted to represent Gevo at the oral hearing in this matter. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Gevo’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Brett
`
`Lund for this proceeding is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lund is authorized to represent Gevo as
`
`back-up counsel only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Gevo’s lead counsel, Erich E. Veitenheimer, is
`
`excused from attendance at the oral hearing on October 28, 2014; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lund is 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, and 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 et seq.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00539
`Patent 8,273,565 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`Deborah A. Sterling, Ph.D.
`Peter A. Jackman
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
`pjackman-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Erich E. Veitenheimer, Ph.D.
`Chris Holly, Ph.D.
`COOLEY LLP
`eveitenheimer@cooley.com
`IPR2013-00539@cooley.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
