Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, Paper 27
`IPR2016-00209, Paper 17
`Entered: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01201
`Case IPR2016-002091
`Patent 5,591,678
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jennifer Seraphine
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses identical motions filed in both cases; therefore, we
`issue a single order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, Paper 27
`IPR2016-00209, Paper 17
`Entered: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01201
`Case IPR2016-002091
`Patent 5,591,678
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jennifer Seraphine
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses identical motions filed in both cases; therefore, we
`issue a single order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`For each of these proceedings, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro
`
`hac vice admission of Ms. Jennifer Seraphine (Paper 24, “Mot.”),2 with a
`
`supporting declaration of Ms. Seraphine (Ex. 1024, “Seraphine Decl.”).
`
`Petitioner indicated that the Motion was unopposed (Mot. 2), and Patent
`
`Owner did not oppose the motion within the one-week period permitted for
`
`filing an opposition. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is
`
`granted.
`
`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). 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.” Id. In authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the
`
`Board requires the moving party to provide 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. See Unified
`
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3
`
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7).
`
`Petitioner provides evidence that Ms. Seraphine is an experienced
`
`intellectual property litigation attorney with an established familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue in these inter partes reviews. Mot. 2–3; Seraphine
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 1, 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “Ms. Seraphine’s
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations to the record herein are in reference to
`IPR2015-01201. The same papers may be found in IPR2016-00209.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding is demonstrated
`
`by her review of the ’678 patent and the cited prior art and her assistance in
`
`drafting the petition for inter partes review.” Mot. 3; Seraphine Decl. ¶ 9.
`
`Ms. Seraphine attests that she is a member in good standing of the state bars
`
`of California, New York, District of Columbia, and Florida (inactive), and
`
`has never been suspended or disbarred from practice, denied application to
`
`practice, sanctioned, or cited for contempt by any court or administrative
`
`body. Seraphine Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4–5; see Mot. 2–3.
`
`Based on the facts set forth in support of the motion and
`
`Ms. Seraphine’s supporting declaration, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`established good cause for Ms. Seraphine’s pro hac vice admission.
`
`Ms. Seraphine shall be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 11.101 et seq. Furthermore, Ms. Seraphine is directed to
`
`comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of
`
`Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the C.F.R.
`
`Ms. Seraphine will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the instant
`
`proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Jennifer Seraphine is granted, and Ms. Seraphine is authorized to represent
`
`Petitioner in the instant proceedings as back-up counsel only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Seraphine is to comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Seraphine is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`Robert Hails
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`rhails@bakerlaw.com
`docketing@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Filarski
`Stanley A. Schlitter
`John L. Abramic
`Daniel S. Stringfield
`Brian Fahrenbach
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
`tfilarski@steptoe.com
`sschlitter@steptoe.com
`jabramic@steptoe.com
`dstringfield@steptoe.com
`bfahrenbach@steptoe.com
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
