`571-272-7822
`
` IPR2015-01432, Paper 9
`
`IPR2015-01434, Paper 9
`IPR2015-01435, Paper 9
`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 MARK A. HANNEMANN
`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 Mark A. Hannemann 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).
`
`Mark A. Hanneman provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of New York;
`
`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 Mark A. Hannemann
`
`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 Mark A. Hannemann should be recognized pro hac vice for
`
`purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Hannemann has provided the requisite affidavit or
`
`declaration. Therefore, Mark A. Hannemann 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 Mark A.
`
`Hannemann is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hannemann 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 Mark A. Hannemann 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 mark A. Hannemann 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