`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 19
`
`Entered: November 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPTIVE HEADLAMP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Adam P. Samansky
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`Petitioner moves to have Mr. Adam P. Samansky admitted pro hac
`vice in this proceeding. Paper 14. Petitioner submitted a declaration from
`Mr. Samansky in support of this motion. Ex. 1028. Patent Owner did not
`file an opposition to Petitioner’s motion in the requisite time.
`Based on the facts set forth in the motion and the accompanying
`declaration, we conclude that Mr. Samansky has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding, that Mr.
`Samansky has demonstrated the necessarily familiarity with the subject
`matter of this proceeding, and that there is a need for Petitioner to be
`represented by counsel who has experience litigating the challenged patent.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for the admission of
`Mr. Samansky pro hac vice. Mr. Samansky will be permitted to serve as
`back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to admit Mr. Adam P. Samansky
`pro hac vice (Paper 14) is granted, and Mr. Samansky is authorized to
`represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered
`practitioner serve as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Samansky comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Title 37, Part 42, of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00193
`Patent 7,241,034 C1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Samansky is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`David Cotta
`Peter Cuomo
`Kongsik Kim
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC
`dcotta@mintz.com
`PJCuomo@mintz.com
`KKim@mintz.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Pinkus
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`pinkus@fsclaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3