`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 17
`Date: March 2, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01508 (Patent 6,542,076 B1) 1
`Case IPR2015-01509 (Patent 6,549,130 B1)
`Case IPR2015-01585 (Patent 5,917,405)
`Case IPR2015-01645 (Patent 7,397,363 C1)
`
`____________
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STACEY G. WHITE, JASON J.
`CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Steven Ritcheson
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses a similar issue in the all four cases. Therefore, we exercise
`discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties, however, are not
`authorized to use this style of heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01508 (Patent 6,542,076 B1) IPR2015-01509 (Patent 6,549,130 B1)
`IPR2015-01585 (Patent 5,917,405) IPR2015-01645 (Patent 7,397,363 C1)
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Steven W.
`
`Ritcheson in each of the above-identified proceedings on February 23, 2016.2
`
`IPR2015-01508, Paper 15; IPR2015-01509, Paper 14; IPR2015-01585, Paper 16;
`
`IPR2015-01645, Paper 14. The Motion, however, was not accompanied by an
`
`affidavit or declaration of Mr. Ritcheson, as required by the Notice authorizing
`
`motions for pro hac vice admission. See Paper 63, 2 (citing Order – Authorizing
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“A motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission must . . . [b]e accompanied by an affidavit or
`
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear . . . .”)). The Motion merely
`
`contains a general statement that Mr. Ritcheson is an experienced litigation
`
`attorney and is co-counsel in the related district court proceeding. Paper 14, 2.
`
`Such a statement does not satisfy the requirement for an affidavit or declaration.
`
`See Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`(Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`
`Mr. Ritcheson are denied without prejudice as to refiling.
`
`
`
`
`2 We note that Patent Owner filed the same motion in each case and used a case
`caption that listed both matters. The parties are not authorized to use that style of
`case caption. The parties should continue a separate caption for each proceeding.
`
` 3
`
` For ease of reference, unless otherwise indicated, we will refer to the papers filed
`in IPR2015-01508.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01508 (Patent 6,542,076 B1) IPR2015-01509 (Patent 6,549,130 B1)
`IPR2015-01585 (Patent 5,917,405) IPR2015-01645 (Patent 7,397,363 C1)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Clay Holloway
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Alton L. Absher III
`aabsher@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Shayne O’Reilly
`soreilly@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Raymond Joao
`rayjoao@optonline.net
`
`Rene Vazquez
`rvazquez@sinergialaw.com
`
`
`3