`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
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
