`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 59
`Entered: May 30, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AKER BIOMARINE AS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES AND BIORESSOURCES INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for the Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Jonathan G. Graves
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`Patent Owner, Neptune Technologies and Bioressources Inc., (“Patent
`
`Owner”), timely filed a Motion for Jonathan G. Graves to Appear Pro Hac Vice on
`
`Behalf of Patent Owner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) (Paper 44), accompanied
`
`by the Declaration of Jonathan G. Graves in support of the Motion (Ex. 2019).
`
`Petitioner has not filed an opposition. For the reasons provided below, Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion is 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. 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, we also
`
`require a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in
`
`this proceeding. See Paper 7 (referencing the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission” in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, Case IPR2013-00010
`
`(PTAB October 15, 2012) (Paper 7 at 3-4) (expanded panel)).
`
`
`
`In its Motion, Patent Owner asserts that there is good cause for Mr. Graves’
`
`pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Graves is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney; and (2) Mr. Graves has an established familiarity with the subject matter
`
`at issue in the instant proceeding. Mr. Graves is a partner at the law firm of
`
`Cooley LLP, the same firm at which Patent Owner’s lead counsel is also an
`
`associate. Mr. Graves has over 23 years’ experience as a litigating attorney which
`
`“includes several litigation matters in the chemical arts.” He is familiar with the
`
`patent-at-issue and the legal and technical subject matter and prior art discussed in
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`the Petition. In support of the Motion, Mr. Graves attests to these facts in his
`
`Declaration. Ex. 2019, ¶¶ 1-4. In addition to the foregoing, Patent Owner’s lead
`
`counsel, Stephen L. Altieri, is a registered practitioner. Ex. 2019, ¶ 1.
`
`Based on the facts set forth above, we conclude that Mr. Graves 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. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (expanded panel), (superseding IPR2013-00010, Paper 7,
`
`dated October 15, 2012, and setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice
`
`admission) (copy available on the Board Web site under “Representative Orders,
`
`Decisions, and Notices”). Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause
`
`for Mr. Graves’ pro hac vice admission. Mr. Graves will be permitted to appear
`
`pro hac vice in the instant proceeding 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 Jonathan G. Graves to Appear
`
`Pro Hac Vice for the instant proceeding is granted; Mr. Graves is authorized to
`
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceeding;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDRED that Mr. Graves 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. Graves 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`John Jones
`jmjones@casimirjones.com
`
`Amanda Hollis
`Amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen Altieri
`saltieri@cooley.com
`
`J. Dean Farmer
`dfarmer@cooley.com
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`