Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,968,884
`_______________
`
`
`
`GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
` Patent Owner’s Revised Unopposed Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Frederick L. Whitmer
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: September 25, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`NORMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HUNTER DOUGLAS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,968,884
`_______________
`
`
`
`GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
` Patent Owner’s Revised Unopposed Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Frederick L. Whitmer
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`On September 10, 2015, Hunter Douglas, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed an
`
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Frederick L. Whitmer
`
`(Paper 11). On September 24, 2015, Patent Owner was advised, via email
`
`communication from the Board, that the Declaration of Frederick L. Whitmer in
`
`Support of the Motion (Ex. 2002) was deficient, because Mr. Whitmer had not
`
`identified all other proceedings before the Office for which he had applied to
`
`appear pro hac vice in the last three years, as required by the Board’s decision in
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 at 3 ¶
`
`2(b)(vii) (PTAB October 15, 2013) (expanded panel)). In response to this email
`
`communication, Patent Owner filed a Revised Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission (Paper 18 (“Motion”)) and revised Declaration (Ex. 2004
`
`(“Declaration”)). For the reasons provided below, the Motion is granted.
`
`As set forth in 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 is a registered practitioner. For example, where the
`
`lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission, we also require a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us
`
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual
`
`seeking to appear in this proceeding. See Paper 5 at 2 (referencing the “Order—
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Unified Patents).
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Kristopher L. Reed, is a registered practitioner.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`Paper 3. Patent Owner states that there is good cause for Mr.Whitmer’s pro hac
`
`vice admission, because Mr. Whitmer is: (1) an experienced litigation attorney;
`
`and (2) familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding by virtue of the
`
`fact that he is counsel for Patent Owner in the co-pending litigation, Hunter
`
`Douglas, Inc. v. Nien Made Enterprise Co., Ltd., Case No. 1:13-cv-01412-MSK-
`
`MJW (D. Colo.), involving the challenged patent in this proceeding. Paper 18, 1–
`
`2. Patent Owner provides facts in support of these contentions, see id., and Mr.
`
`Whitmer attests to these facts in his Declaration.
`
`Mr. Whitmer testifies that in the co-pending litigation, he has “reviewed
`
`prior art, developed validity arguments, developed claim construction arguments,
`
`filed and responded to motions regarding personal jurisdiction, stay, and
`
`scheduling.” Ex. 2004, ¶ 7. Mr. Whitmer testifies that he has experience in
`
`numerous litigations involving patent infringement and validity in District Courts
`
`across the country, including experience in jury and bench trials, Markman
`
`hearings, and Federal Circuit oral arguments in patent infringement litigation. Id.
`
`at ¶ 8. Mr. Whitmer also testifies that he previously applied for and was granted
`
`pro hac vice admission to appear before the Board in IPR2014-00283 on behalf of
`
`Patent Owner. Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`Based on the facts set forth above, we conclude Mr. Whitmer has sufficient
`
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for Mr. Whitmer’s pro hac
`
`vice admission. Mr. Whitmer will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the
`
`instant proceeding as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01175
`Patent 6,968,884 B2
`
`
`For the forgoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Revised Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission of Mr. Whitmer for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Whitmer 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 Section 37 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).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Kourtney Mueller Merrill
`KMerrill@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kristopher Reed
`HD-Norman-IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Darin Gibby
`dgibby@kilpatricktownsend.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
