`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
`U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`____________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`PRO HAC VICE OF MARK A. HANNEMANN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner Robert Bosch LLC
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`respectfully requests that the Board admit Mark A. Hannemann pro hac vice as
`
`back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Facts Showing There is Good Cause for the Board to
`
`Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice
`
`“The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice in 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). “[W]here lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro
`
`hac vice by counsel who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon a
`
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id. The facts here
`
`establish good cause for the Board to admit Mark Hannemann pro hac vice during
`
`this proceeding, so that he may participate in, inter alia, oral hearings, depositions,
`
`and conferences with the Board.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel, Eric Schreiber, is a registered practitioner.
`
`As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Mark A. Hannemann
`
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Hannemann
`
`Decl.”), Mr. Hannemann is admitted to practice law in the State of New York, the
`
`U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Second Circuit, and the U.S.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`York, and the Eastern District of Michigan. Hannemann Decl., ¶ 3.
`
`3. Mr. Hannemann is an experienced litigating attorney.
`
` More
`
`specifically, he has 20 years of litigation experience with a focus on patent
`
`infringement proceedings. Hannemann Decl., ¶ 4. Mr. Hannemann has been a
`
`first-chair litigator in several patent infringement trials. Hannemann Decl., ¶ 4.
`
`4. Mr. Hannemann also has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Since 2007, he has been lead counsel for Patent
`
`Owner in numerous patent infringement cases in federal courts and before the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission involving the same subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding, Patent Owner’s beam windshield wiper blade technology. Hannemann
`
`Decl., ¶ 5. In each of those cases, Patent Owner has asserted patents directed to
`
`beam wiper blade technology. Hannemann Decl., ¶ 5.
`
`5. Mr. Hannemann is lead counsel for Patent Owner in a patent
`
`infringement case currently pending against Petitioner in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Delaware, Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products Inc. et
`
`al., Civil Action No. 12-574-LPS (consolidated with Civil Action No. 14-142-LPS
`
`(D. Del.)). Hannemann Decl., ¶ 6. U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823, the patent at issue
`
`in this IPR proceeding, is also at issue in the pending Delaware action.
`
`Hannemann Decl., ¶ 6.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`6. Mr. Hannemann attests to each of the pro hac vice declaration
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`requirements listed in the Board’s Order in Case No. IPR2013-00639 (Paper 7).
`
`See Hannemann Decl., ¶¶ 3–12.
`
`7. Mr. Hannemann has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42
`
`of 37 C.F.R. Hannemann Decl., ¶ 10.
`
`8. Mr. Hannemann agrees to 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) and to be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct as set forth in Changes to Representation of Others Before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 20180
`
`(Apr. 3, 2013) (effective May 3, 2013). Hannemann Decl., ¶ 11.
`
`II. Conclusion
`
`The requirements for admission pro hac vice being hereby established,
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board admit Mark Hannemann pro hac
`
`vice as back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2015 KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`/Eric T. Schreiber/
`Eric T. Schreiber
`Reg. No. 58,771
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
` Tel: (212) 425-7200
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CASE NO. IPR2016-00041
` U.S. Patent No. 8,099,823
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that
`
`the
`
`foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF MARK A.
`
`HANNEMANN was served via electronic mail on November 2, 2015, in its
`
`entirety on the following counsel for Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard M. Koehl (richard.koehl@hugheshubbard.com)
`James R. Klaiber (james.klaiber@hugheshubbard.com)
`David E. Lansky (david.lansky@ hugheshubbard.com)
`
`/Eric T. Schreiber/
`Eric T. Schreiber
`Reg. No. 58,771
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
` Tel: (212) 425-7200
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Robert Bosch LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5