Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 24
`
`Date Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT COPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-004481
`Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`Case IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`____________
`
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`MICHAEL N. ZACHARY
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1
` This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 24
`
`Date Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT COPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-004481
`Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Case IPR2016-00449
`Patent 8,924,506 B2
`Case IPR2016-01897
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`____________
`
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`MICHAEL N. ZACHARY
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1
` This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448; IPR2016-00449; IPR2016-01897
`Patent 7,908,343 B2; 8,924,506 B2; 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`In each of the captioned cases, Bradium Technologies, LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) moves for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Michael N. Zachary in
`
`accordance with 37 CFR 42.10. Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) does not
`
`oppose the Motion. We grant the Motion.
`
`I. Discussion
`
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), 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. 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.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board also
`
`requires 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 in this proceeding. (See, Paper 7, “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission” in IPR2013-00639, entered October 15, 2013).
`
`Michael N. Zachary provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`
`i.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448; IPR2016-00449; IPR2016-01897
`Patent 7,908,343 B2; 8,924,506 B2; 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`v. has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37
`
`C.F.R.;
`
`vi. will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii.
`
`has listed all other proceedings before the Office for which he has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner in each proceeding, duly registered to
`
`practice at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. Zachary is a
`
`litigation attorney experienced in patent cases and has established a familiarity
`
`with the subject matter at issue in the captioned proceedings. Thus, Patent Owner
`
`has shown good cause why Michael N. Zachary should be recognized pro hac vice
`
`for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Zachary has provided the requisite affidavit
`
`or declaration. Therefore, Michael N. Zachary has complied with the requirements
`
`for admission pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Michael N.
`
`Zachary in each of the captioned proceedings is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary may not act as lead counsel
`
`in any of the proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout each proceeding; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448; IPR2016-00449; IPR2016-01897
`Patent 7,908,343 B2; 8,924,506 B2; 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary 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 the C.F.R.; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary is 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., which took
`
`effect on May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Bing Ai
`Patrick McKeever
`Vinay Sathe
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Christopher Coulson
`Clifford Ulrich
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`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
