`
`
`Paper No. 11
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF JENNIFER
`SERAPHINE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00209
`
`
`I. Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, Petitioner Sony Corporation requests
`
`that the Board admit Jennifer Seraphine pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Statement of Facts Showing Good Cause for the Board to
`Recognize Counsel Pro Hac Vice During the Proceeding
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize
`
`counsel pro hac vice during a proceeding, subject to the conditions set forth
`
`therein, and any others that the Board may impose. Petitioner sets forth these
`
`facts in support of this motion:
`
`1.
`
`The undersigned contacted counsel for patent owner Raytheon
`
`Company, Tom Filarski, who indicated that Patent Owner did not plan to
`
`oppose Ms. Seraphine's admission pro hac vice.
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel for the proceeding, Matthew A. Smith (counsel
`
`for Sony Corporation) is a registered practitioner.
`
`3.
`
`Jennifer Seraphine is an experienced litigator and has
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`Accompanying this motion as Ex. 1015, the Declaration of Jennifer
`
`Seraphine in Support of this Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`(“Seraphine Dec.”). In her declaration, Ms. Seraphine attests, among other
`
`things, that she is a member in good standing of the State Bars of California,
`
`New York, and the District of Columbia, as well as an inactive member of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00209
`
`
`
`the State Bar of Florida. Seraphine Dec. ¶ 2. Ms. Seraphine further attests
`
`that she is a member in good standing of several United States District and
`
`Appellate Courts. Id. Ms. Seraphine has over seventeen years of experience
`
`in patent litigation. Id. ¶¶ 1-3. In addition, Ms. Seraphine’s familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding is demonstrated by her review
`
`of the '678 patent and the cited prior art and her assistance in drafting the
`
`petition for inter partes review. Id. ¶ 9.
`
`4.
`
`In her declaration, Ms. Seraphine also attests as to her
`
`admission to practice in other courts, and also to each of the required items
`
`set forth by 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c). See Seraphine Dec. ¶¶ 2, 4-8.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board admit Seraphine pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Matthew A. Smith/
`Matthew A. Smith
`Registration No. 49,003
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00209
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`
`Unopposed Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jennifer Seraphine was
`
`served on March 25, 2016 by electronic mail on the Patent Owner’s counsel:
`
`tfilarski@steptoe.com, sschlitter@steptoe.com, dstringfield@steptoe.com,
`
`and 678IPR@steptoe.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Matthew A. Smith/
`Matthew A. Smith
`Registration No. 49,003
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`4
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
