throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` IPR2015-01432, Paper 10
`
`IPR2015-01434, Paper 10
`IPR2015-01435, Paper 10
`Date Entered: August 20, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01432 (Patent 7,139,794 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01434 (Patent 7,908,343 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01435 (Patent 8,924,506 B21)
`____________
`
`Before: BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
`OF ROBIN M. PLACHY
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01432; IPR2015-01434; IPR2015-01435
`Patent 7,139,794 B2; 7,908,343 B2; 8924,506 B2
`
`
`On August 4, 2015 Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) moved for
`
`the pro hac vice admission of attorney Robin M. Plachy in accordance with
`
`37 CFR § 42.10. (“Motion”). Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) has not
`
`opposed 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, Paper 7, “Order –
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-00639, entered
`
`October 15, 2013).
`
`Robin M. Plachy provides uncontroverted testimony that she:
`
`i.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bars of New York and
`
`Massachusetts;
`
`ii.
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`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;
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01432; IPR2015-01434; IPR2015-01435
`Patent 7,139,794 B2; 7,908,343 B2; 8924,506 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`Backup counsel for Patent Owner, Chris Coulson, who is a registered to
`
`practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Robin M. Plachy is a
`
`litigation attorney experienced in patent cases and has an established familiarity
`
`with the subject matter of this proceeding, having represented Patent Owner in
`
`other litigation involving the same technology. Thus, Patent Owner has shown
`
`good cause why Robin M. Plachy should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes
`
`of this proceeding. Ms. Plachy has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration.
`
`Therefore, Robin M. Plachy has complied with the requirements for admission
`
`pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Robin M.
`
`Plachy is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Plachy may not act as lead counsel in the
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout the proceeding;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01432; IPR2015-01434; IPR2015-01435
`Patent 7,139,794 B2; 7,908,343 B2; 8924,506 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Robin M. Plachy 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 Robin M. Plachy 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.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Bing Ai
`ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Vinay Sathe
`vsathe@perkinscoie.com
`
`Patrick McKeever
`pmckeever@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Michelle Carniaux
`mcarniaux@kenyon.com
`
`Christopher Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket