`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, Paper 27
`IPR2016-00209, Paper 17
`Entered: April 4, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01201
`Case IPR2016-002091
`Patent 5,591,678
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Jennifer Seraphine
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses identical motions filed in both cases; therefore, we
`issue a single order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`For each of these proceedings, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro
`
`hac vice admission of Ms. Jennifer Seraphine (Paper 24, “Mot.”),2 with a
`
`supporting declaration of Ms. Seraphine (Ex. 1024, “Seraphine Decl.”).
`
`Petitioner indicated that the Motion was unopposed (Mot. 2), and Patent
`
`Owner did not oppose the motion within the one-week period permitted for
`
`filing an opposition. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is
`
`granted.
`
`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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). For example, where the lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be permitted to
`
`appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`the proceeding.” Id. In authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the
`
`Board requires the moving party to provide a statement of facts showing
`
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an
`
`affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear. See Unified
`
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3
`
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7).
`
`Petitioner provides evidence that Ms. Seraphine is an experienced
`
`intellectual property litigation attorney with an established familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue in these inter partes reviews. Mot. 2–3; Seraphine
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 1, 9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “Ms. Seraphine’s
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations to the record herein are in reference to
`IPR2015-01201. The same papers may be found in IPR2016-00209.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`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.” Mot. 3; Seraphine Decl. ¶ 9.
`
`Ms. Seraphine attests that she is a member in good standing of the state bars
`
`of California, New York, District of Columbia, and Florida (inactive), and
`
`has never been suspended or disbarred from practice, denied application to
`
`practice, sanctioned, or cited for contempt by any court or administrative
`
`body. Seraphine Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4–5; see Mot. 2–3.
`
`Based on the facts set forth in support of the motion and
`
`Ms. Seraphine’s supporting declaration, we conclude that Petitioner has
`
`established good cause for Ms. Seraphine’s pro hac vice admission.
`
`Ms. Seraphine shall be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. § 11.101 et seq. Furthermore, Ms. Seraphine is directed to
`
`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 C.F.R.
`
`Ms. Seraphine will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the instant
`
`proceedings as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Jennifer Seraphine is granted, and Ms. Seraphine is authorized to represent
`
`Petitioner in the instant proceedings as back-up counsel only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Seraphine is to 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
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Seraphine is subject to the USPTO
`
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2015-01201, IPR2016-00209
`Patent 5,591,678
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Zhuanjia Gu
`Robert Hails
`TURNER BOYD LLP
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`gu@turnerboyd.com
`rhails@bakerlaw.com
`docketing@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Filarski
`Stanley A. Schlitter
`John L. Abramic
`Daniel S. Stringfield
`Brian Fahrenbach
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP
`tfilarski@steptoe.com
`sschlitter@steptoe.com
`jabramic@steptoe.com
`dstringfield@steptoe.com
`bfahrenbach@steptoe.com