`571.272.7822
`
`Paper 28
`Entered: August 19, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ANCESTRY.COM DNA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DNA GENOTEK INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00060
`Patent 8,221,381 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`John R. Lanham
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00060
`Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of John R.
`Lanham in this proceeding. Paper 27. The motion is supported by a
`declaration of Mr. Lanham. Ex. 2012. Petitioner has not opposed the
`motion.
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and there is good cause to
`admit Mr. Lanham pro hac vice.1
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`It is therefore
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`John R. Lanham in this proceeding is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lanham is authorized to appear as
`back-up counsel for Patent Owner in this proceeding, but Mr. Lanham may
`not act as lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`
`
`1 According to the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, Mr. Lanham’s declaration
`must provide a statement acknowledging that he will 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. In his declaration, Mr. Lanham incorrectly cites “37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et
`seq.” with respect to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. Pursuant to
`this order, by appearing pro hac vice in this case, Mr. Lanham agrees 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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00060
`Patent 8,221,381 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lanham 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lanham is 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.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall file updated
`mandatory notices, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), providing updated
`information regarding back-up counsel.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Brian M. Kramer
`Peng Chen
`Desmond P. O’Sullivan
`Chika Arakawa
`60414-381-IPR@mofo.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daniel M. Becker
`DBecker-PTAB@fenwick.com
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Jbush-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`3