`571-272-7822 Entered: December 1, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARTSANA USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`On July 30, 2014, Patent Owner filed an unopposed motion for pro
`
`
`
`hac vice admission of Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. Paper 9. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501
`
`to appear in this proceeding. Paper 3, Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition, 3.
`
`
`
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Patent Owner, Mr. Robert E.
`
`Conley, is a registered practitioner. Patent Owner’s motion urges that there
`
`is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Niro pro hac vice during these
`
`proceedings, and is supported by the affidavit of Mr. Niro. Ex. 2001.
`
`
`
`In particular, the motion explains that Mr. Niro is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney, and Mr. Niro 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 patent involved in
`
`these proceedings. Ex 2001 at 3-4.
`
`
`
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Niro
`
`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. Niro involved in these trial proceedings by his
`
`significant involvement in closely related district court trial proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for Mr. Niro’s
`
`admission. Mr. Niro 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. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. is granted;
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. is authorized to
`
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only;
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent Patent Owner as lead counsel for these
`
`proceedings; and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01053
`Patent 8,388,501
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Anthony Volpe
`avolpe@vklaw.com
`
`Ryan O’Donnell
`rodonnell@vklaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert Conley
`RConley@nshn.com
`
`Brian Haan
`BHaan@nshn.com
`
`
`
`
`