UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`THOMAS R. GOOTS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`THOMAS R. GOOTS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner The Procter & Gamble
`
`Company (“P&G”) respectfully requests the pro hac vice admission of Thomas R.
`
`Goots in this proceeding. In email correspondence between Patent Owner and
`
`Petitioner dated June 26, 2014, Petitioner agreed not to oppose this motion.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Section 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`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 and
`to any other conditions as the Board may impose. For
`example, where the lead counsel is a registered
`practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel
`who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney
`and has an established familiarity with the subject matter
`at issue in the proceeding.
`
`In the Notice of Filing Date Accorded (Paper 5), the Board advised that
`
`motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) must be filed in
`
`accordance with the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”
`
`entered in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Unified Patent Order”).
`
`The Unified Patent Order requires that such motions (1) “[c]ontain a
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`pro hac vice during the proceeding;” and (2) “[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to the following”:
`
`i.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one
`
`State or the District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court
`
`or administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will
`
`comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42
`
`of the C.F.R.;
`
`vi.
`
`The individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R §§ 11.101 et
`
`seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`11.19(a).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the
`
`individual has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last
`
`three (3) years; and
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Affidavit of Mr. Goots
`
`(Ex. 2010) submitted herewith, Patent Owner requests the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Thomas R. Goots in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David M. Maiorana, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 41,449).
`
`2. Mr. Goots is a Partner at the law firm of Jones Day. (Ex. 2010 at ¶ 3.)
`
`3. Mr. Goots is an experienced patent litigation attorney. Mr. Goots has
`
`been a patent litigation attorney for nearly 19 years. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
`
`Mr. Goots has been litigating patent cases during the entire time
`
`period and, in particular, has litigated at least 25 patent infringement
`
`actions involving a variety of matters, including those involving
`
`chemical compositions. (Id.)
`
`4. Mr. Goots is a member of good standing of the State Bar of Ohio. (Id.
`
`at ¶ 5.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`5. Mr. Goots has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
`
`6.
`
`No application of Mr. Goots for admission to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body has ever been ultimately denied. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
`
`7.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Goots by any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
`
`8. Mr. Goots has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`
`part 42 of the C.F.R. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
`
`9. Mr. Goots understands that he will be subject to USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). (Id. at ¶ 9.)
`
`10. Mr. Goots is concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission to appear in
`
`co-pending, related matters against the Petitioner, Cases IPR2013-
`
`00505, IPR2014-00506, and IPR2013-00509. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF MR. GOOTS IN THIS PROCEEDING
`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 and to any other conditions as the Board may impose. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David M. Maiorana, is a registered
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`practitioner. Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Goots’
`
`Affidavit, good cause exists to admit Mr. Goots pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Goots has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. (Exhibit 2010 at ¶¶ 11-12.)
`
`Mr. Goots has reviewed in detail the pleadings submitted by Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner in this proceeding and in related Cases IPR2013-00505, IPR2014-
`
`00506, and IPR2013-00509. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Mr. Goots has reviewed in detail the
`
`challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,451,300 (“the ’300 patent”). (Id. at ¶ 12.)
`
`He has also reviewed in detail the exhibits relied upon by Petitioner. (Id.) Mr.
`
`Goots has engaged in hours of strategic and substantive discussions regarding this
`
`proceeding with David M. Maiorana, who is the lead counsel for Patent Owner in
`
`this proceeding and in Cases IPR2013-00505, IPR2014-00506, and IPR2013-00509.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 11.) Mr. Goots is also counsel of record in litigation involving the ’300
`
`patent before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
`
`(Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-732-TSB) (Id. at ¶ 12.)
`
`Thus, Mr. Goots has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Mr. Goots’ significant litigation experience and expertise
`
`will be of great value to the Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`
`Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Goots’ Affidavit,
`
`good cause exists to admit Mr. Goots pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that Mr. Goots
`
`be admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00507
`Patent 6,451,300
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`John V. Biernacki (Reg. No. 40,511)
`Michael S. Weinstein (Reg. No. 62,446)
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`Tel: (216) 586-3939 / Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`Steven W. Miller (Reg. No. 31,984)
`Kim W. Zerby (Reg. No. 32,323)
`Carl J. Roof (Reg. No. 37,708)
`Angela K. Haughey (Reg. No. 56,373)
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
`299 E. Sixth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
`Tel: (513) 983-1100 / Fax: (513) 945-2729
`
`Attorneys For Patent Owner
`The Procter & Gamble Company
`
`7
`
`June 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission of Thomas R. Goots Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) was served
`
`on June 30, 2014 by electronic mail (per the parties’ agreement), on the following
`
`Joseph P. Meara, Esq.
`jmeara@foley.com
`Michael R. Houston, Esq.
`mhouston@foley.com
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 North Clark Street
`Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
` /s/ David M. Maiorana
`David M. Maiorana
`Registration No. 41,449
`JONES DAY
`North Point
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Attorney For Patent Owner
`The Procter & Gamble Company
`
`
`
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner:
`
`Eldora L. Ellison, Esq.
`eellison-PTAB@skgf.com
`Robert G. Sterne, Esq.
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`& FOX
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
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
