`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 15
`Entered: October 30, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, JAMES A. TARTAL, and
`PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Withdraw and Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10
`
`On October 3, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Counsel to
`
`Withdraw from the Proceeding. Paper 9. The motion requests that current
`
`designated counsel, Nathan J. Rees and Daniel A. Prati, withdraw from this
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`proceeding. Id. The motion does not seek any extensions of time and
`
`
`
`represents that Patent Owner does not oppose. Id. Counsel may withdraw
`
`from an inter partes review proceeding only with authorization from the
`
`Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e).
`
`On October 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a Power of Attorney revoking
`
`its prior power of attorney of Nathan J. Rees and Daniel A. Prati in
`
`connection with this proceeding, and appointing Steven F. Meyer, a
`
`registered practitioner, as Lead Counsel and Charles S. Baker as Back-Up
`
`Counsel pro hac vice. Paper 10.
`
`On October 23, 2014, Petitioner filed supplemental mandatory notices
`
`(Paper 11) and a motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Baker (Paper 12).
`
`In the motion, Petitioner states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Baker pro hac vice during this proceeding because he
`
`represents Petitioner in related litigation with Patent Owner. Paper 12, 3.
`
`The motion further asserts that Mr. Baker is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney and has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Id. at 2. The motion is supported by a Declaration by
`
`Mr. Baker attesting to, and sufficiently explaining, these facts. Ex. 1011.
`
`Mr. Baker’s Declaration asserts that he agrees “to be subject to the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office Rules of Professional Conduct set forth
`
`in 37 CFR §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 CFR
`
`§ 11.19(a).” Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that
`
`Mr. Baker has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`
`Petitioner in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a
`
`need for Petitioner to have its related litigation counsel involved in this
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner also has established that there is good
`
`
`
`cause for admitting Mr. Baker. Petitioner will not be unrepresented after
`
`withdrawal of its current counsel.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Counsel to Withdraw is
`
`granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Nathan J. Rees and Daniel A. Prati are
`
`permitted to withdraw as counsel in this proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Steven F. Meyer is recognized as Lead
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Charles S. Baker is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Baker 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01121
`Patent 7,626,349 B2
`
`PETITONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven Meyer
`ptopatentcommunication@lockelord.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott Brown
`jcrawford@hoveywilliams.com
`
`Matthew Walters
`mwalters@hoveywilliams.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
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
