`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`ANCESTRY.COM DNA LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`DNA GENOTEK INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,221,381
`
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00060
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`
`JOHN R. LANHAM UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sd-685253
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`I.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, Patent Owner DNA GENOTEK INC.
`
`requests that the Board admit John R. Lanham pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`The undersigned contacted counsel for Petitioner ANCESTRY.COM DNA LLC
`
`(“Ancestry”), Daniel M. Becker of FENWICK & WEST LLP, who indicated that
`
`Petitioner did not plan to oppose Mr. Lanham’s admission pro hac vice.
`
`II. Governing Laws, Rules, and Precedent
`
`Section 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`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. For example,
`where the 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 showing that counsel is an
`experienced
`litigating attorney and has an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`III. Statement of Facts
`
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Declaration of John R.
`
`Lanham in Support of this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed herewith
`
`(“Exhibit 2001”), Patent Owner submits that a showing of good cause has been
`
`made and respectfully requests the pro hac vice of John R. Lanham in this
`
`proceeding:
`
`sd-685253
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`1.
`
`This authorized petition is filed more than twenty-one (21) days after
`
`Petitioner Ancestry served its PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`
`PATENT 8,221,381 (Paper No. 1).
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner DNA GENOTEK INC. (“DNA
`
`Genotek”), Brian M. Kramer, is a registered practitioner. Mr. Lanham is an
`
`associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP where Mr. Kramer is a
`
`partner.
`
`3. Mr. Lanham is an experienced litigator. Mr. Lanham has seven years
`
`of experience in patent litigation, including investigating the validity and alleged
`
`infringement of various patents, working with technical expert witnesses,
`
`appearing at trial, and representing clients in connection with specialized patent-
`
`related proceedings including claim construction and disclosures such as invalidity
`
`and infringement contentions and responses thereto. Exhibit 2001¶¶ 4-5.
`
`4. Mr. Lanham has established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Mr. Lanham is an attorney for Patent Owner DNA
`
`Genotek and a member of the trial team in both of the co-pending district court
`
`litigations identified as Related Matters by Petitioner Ancestry (Paper No. 1):
`
`(1) DNA Genotek Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00355-SLR (D.
`
`Del) and (2) DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum DNA, Spectrum Solutions LLC, and
`
`Spectrum Packaging LLC, Case. No. 15-cv-00661-SLR (D. Del.). Both of these
`
`sd-685253
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`district court litigations involve the same patent at issue in this proceeding, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,221,381 (the “’381 patent”). Exhibit 2001 ¶ 5. Mr. Lanham is also an
`
`attorney for Patent Owner DNA Genotek and a member of the trial team in
`
`pending district court litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,207,164, a
`
`continuation of the application for the ’381 patent, DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum
`
`DNA and Spectrum Solutions LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01544-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.)
`
`Exhibit 2001 ¶ 5. As counsel for Patent Owner DNA Genotek in the above-
`
`referenced matters, Mr. Lanham has been actively involved in all aspects of the
`
`district court litigations, including factual investigation and assessment of validity
`
`and infringement positions regarding the claims of the ’381 patent challenged by
`
`Petitioner Ancestry in this proceeding. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 5. Mr. Lanham has
`
`reviewed in detail the ’381 patent and the prior art raised in Ancestry’s Petition.
`
`Exhibit 2001 ¶ 5.
`
`5. Mr. Lanham is a member in good standing of the State Bar of
`
`California and the State Bar of Colorado. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 6.
`
`6. Mr. Lanham has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 7.
`
`7.
`
`No application by Mr. Lanham for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 8.
`
`sd-685253
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`8.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Lanham by any court or administrative body. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 9.
`
`9. Mr. Lanham has read and agrees to 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. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 10.
`
`10. Mr. Lanham understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct and disciplinary jurisdiction set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Exhibit
`
`2001 ¶ 11.
`
`11. Mr. Lanham has applied to appear pro hac vice in no other
`
`proceedings before the Office in the last three (3) years. Exhibit 2001 ¶ 12.
`
`IV. Good Cause Exits for the Pro Hac Vice Admission of John R. Lanham
`
`The facts outlined above in the Statement of Facts and contained in the
`
`Declaration of John R. Lanham (Exhibit 2001) establish that there is good cause to
`
`admit Mr. Lanham pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 32.10. Mr.
`
`Lanham is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity
`
`with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Mr. Lanham pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`sd-685253
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`
`
`Date: August 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s / Brian M. Kramer
`
`Brian M. Kramer, Reg. No. 48,994
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-5415
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`sd-685253
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00060
`
`Docket No.: 604140000012
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of John R. Lanham Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Supporting
`
`Declaration of John R. Lanham, were served on the date listed below via electronic
`
`mail upon the following counsel of record for Petitioner.
`
`
`
`DBecker-PTAB@fenwick.com
`Daniel M. Becker
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`/s/ Brian M. Kramer
`Brian M. Kramer
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`sd-685253
`
`6