Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 9
`
` Date Entered: June 26, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND MICRON MEMORY JAPAN, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`ROSE CORDERO PREY
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 9
`
` Date Entered: June 26, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND MICRON MEMORY JAPAN, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`ROSE CORDERO PREY
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`
`
`Petitioners Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Memory Japan, Inc. move
`
`for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Rose Cordero Prey in accordance with
`
`37 CFR 42.10. (“Motion,” Paper 7, filed June 9, 2015). Patent Owner,
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology, does not oppose the Motion. We grant the
`
`Motion.
`
`I. Discussion
`
`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 be 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, the Board also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause
`
`for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of
`
`the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. See Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission, Paper 7 (October 15, 2013) (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice
`
`admission).1
`
`Rose Cordero Prey provides uncontroverted testimony that Ms. Prey:
`
`i.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`
`the District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`
`1 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-patent-
`decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`
`
`iii.
`
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by
`
`any court or administrative body;
`
`v. 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 37
`
`C.F.R.;
`
`vi. 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);
`
`vii.
`
`has not applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in the last
`
`three (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`See Motion 2–5 (citing Ex. 1044 (Affidavit of Rose Cordero Prey)).
`
`Petitioners assert that Ms. Prey is trial counsel for Petitioners in co-pending
`
`litigation between Petitioners and Patent Owner and is familiar with the subject
`
`matter of this proceeding. Motion 3. Thus, Petitioners have shown good cause
`
`why Ms. Prey should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Ms. Prey has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. Therefore, Ms. Prey
`
`has complied with the requirements for admission pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`
`
`
`
`II. Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Rose
`
`Cordero Prey is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Rose Cordero Prey may not act as lead counsel
`
`in the proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout the proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Rose Cordero Prey 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
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Rose Cordero Prey is 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., which took
`
`effect on May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01087
`U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221
`
`
`PETITIONERS: (via electronic transmission)
`
`David J. Cooperberg
`Thomas R. Makin
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`dcooperberg@kenyon.com
`tmakin@kenyon.com
`rcordero@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Steven J. Pollinger
`Ramzi R. Khazen
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`spollinger@mckoolsmith.com
`rkhazen@mckoolsmith.com
`01311-00004_IPR221@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
