`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
`
`
`
`
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
