`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
`
`