`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: September 16, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BROSE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`and
`BROSE FAHRZEUGTEILE GMBH & CO. KG, HALLSTADT,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00416
`Patent 8,217,612
`
`Case IPR2014-00417
`Patent 7,579,8021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GLENN J. PERRY, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This decision addresses issues common to both cases; therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to use
`this style heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patent 8,217,612 and Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Luke L. Dauchot
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Petitioner filed a motion2 in each of the captioned cases for the pro
`
`hac vice admission of Mr. Luke L. Dauchot. The motions are supported by
`
`the affidavit of Mr. Dauchot.3 The motions are unopposed. For the reasons
`
`provided below, Petitioner’s motions are granted.
`
`As set forth in 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. 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 these cases, both lead and back-up counsel for Petitioner are
`
`registered practitioners. In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission,
`
`the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the
`
`individual seeking to appear in this proceeding.
`
`In its motion, Petitioner asserts that there is good cause for
`
`Mr. Dauchot’s pro hac vice admission because: (1) Mr. Dauchot is an
`
`experienced litigation attorney who has litigated patent cases in federal
`
`district courts and has been appointed as counsel pro hac vice in at least four
`
`other IPR proceedings in the USPTO; (2) Mr. Dauchot has an established
`
`
`2 IPR2014-00416, Paper 15; IPR2014-00417, Paper 17.
`3 IPR2014-00416, Exhibit 1030; IPR2014-00417, Exhibit 1042.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patent 8,217,612 and Patent 7,579,802
`
`familiarity with the relevant technology and the patents at issue; and (3)
`
`Mr. Dauchot is lead counsel in related cases involving the patents and
`
`pending in the Eastern District of Michigan.
`
`In support of the motions, Mr. Dauchot attests to these facts in his
`
`affidavit with sufficient explanations, attests to being a member in good
`
`standing of the State Bars of California, Ohio and Illinois, and numerous
`
`federal courts, and otherwise attests to the requirements for pro hac vice
`
`admission. See Dauchot Affidavit.
`
`The record shows that Mr. Dauchot has sufficient legal and technical
`
`qualifications to represent Petitioner in these proceedings and that good
`
`cause exists for Mr. Dauchot’s admission. Mr. Dauchot will be permitted to
`
`appear pro hac vice in these proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Dauchot for these proceedings, to represent Petitioner as back-up
`
`counsel, is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Dauchot 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 C.F.R., 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
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00416 and IPR2014-00417
`Patent 8,217,612 and Patent 7,579,802
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Craig D. Leavell
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`craig.leavell@kirkland.com
`
`Alyse Wu
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`alyse.wu@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`mlfalcoff@hdp.com
`
`Michael R. Nye
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`mnye@hdp.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`