`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: December 4, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ENDOTACH LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00100
`Patent 5,593,417
`____________
`
`Before JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, JENNIFER S. BISK and
`MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Endotach filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Jonathan T. Suder.
`
`Paper 11 (“Mot.”). The motion is unopposed. The 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. In authorizing motions
`
`for pro hac vice, the Board requires the moving party to provide a statement of
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00100
`Patent 5,593,417
`
`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. See Paper 3 (“Notice”).
`
`In its motion, Endotach states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Suder as pro hac vice backup counsel during this proceeding,
`
`because Mr. Suder is an experienced litigation attorney with an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Mot. 2-3. More
`
`specifically, Endotach points out that Mr. Suder has been lead counsel for
`
`Endotach in three district court actions involving the same patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Id. Mr. Suder has made a declaration attesting to, and sufficiently
`
`explaining, these facts. Ex. 2001, 2. The declaration complies with the
`
`requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, Endotach has sufficiently demonstrated that Mr. Suder
`
`has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Endotach in this
`
`proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for Endotach to
`
`have its related litigation counsel involved in this proceeding. Accordingly,
`
`Endotach has also established that there is good cause for admitting Mr. Suder.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Endotach motion for pro hac vice admission of Jonathan
`
`T. Suder for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Endotach is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Suder 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of Professional
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00100
`Patent 5,593,417
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`
`
`
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Jack Barufka
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`barufka@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`Ngai Zhang
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`ngai.zhang@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Matthew Phillips
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`
`Brett M. Pinkus (Reg. No. 59,980)
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke
`pinkus@fsclaw.com
`
`
`Jonathan T. Suder
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke
`jts@fsclaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
