`571-272-7822 Entered: October 15, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SKYHAWKE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`L&H CONCEPTS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`On October 8, 2014, Patent Owner filed an unopposed motion for pro
`
`
`
`hac vice admission of Mr. David S. Morris. Paper 11. For the reasons
`
`provided below, Patent Owner’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. In authorizing
`
`motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to
`
`provide a statement of facts showing good cause for the Board to recognize
`
`counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`to appear in this proceeding. Paper 3, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition, 2.
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioner, Mr. David Hoffman, is
`
`a registered practitioner. Petitioner’s motion urges that there is good cause
`
`for the Board to recognize Mr. Morris pro hac vice during these proceedings,
`
`and is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Morris. Ex. 2012.
`
`
`
`In particular, the motion explains that Mr. Morris is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney, and Mr. Morris declares that he has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding, as he is
`
`counsel in a related district court case involving the same patents involved in
`
`these proceedings. Paper 11, pp. 1–2; Ex. 2012.
`
`
`
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated that Mr. Morris
`
`possesses sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent
`
`Owner in these proceedings, and the Board recognizes that there is a desire
`
`for Patent Owner to have Mr. Morris involved. Accordingly, Patent Owner
`
`has established good cause for Mr. Morris’ admission. Mr. Morris will be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice in this 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 pro hac vice admission of
`
`Mr. Davis S. Morris is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. David S. Morris is authorized to
`
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent Patent Owner as lead counsel for these
`
`proceedings; and
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00438
`Patent 5,779,566
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. David S. Miller 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Thomas Fisher
`cpdocketfisher@oblon.com
`
`Scott McKeown
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`Christopher Ricciuti
`cpdocketricciuti@oblon.com
`
`Alexander Englehart
`cpdocketenglehart@oblon.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David Hoffman
`Hoffman@fr.com
`Matthew Wernli
`wernli@fr.com
`
`
`
`