`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 22
`Entered: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01067 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`Case IPR2016-01141 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`Case IPR2016-01155 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Granting Admission Pro Hac Vice
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01067 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2016-01141 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`IPR2016-01155 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Windy City Innovations, LLC moves for the admission
`pro hac vice of attorney Alfred R. Fabricant in each of the above-captioned
`cases. E.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Windy City Innovs., LLC, Case IPR2016-
`01067, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 17, 2017). The Board may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead
`counsel be a registered practitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner in each of the above proceedings is
`Peter Lambrianakos, a registered practitioner. In support of each of the pro
`hac vice motions, Patent Owner submits a Declaration of Alfred R.
`Fabricant. E.g., Microsoft, Case IPR2016-01067, Paper 15. Upon
`consideration of the facts set forth in the pro hac vice motions and
`Mr. Fabricant’s declarations, Patent Owner has shown good cause for
`Mr. Fabricant to be admitted pro hac vice to appear in each of these
`proceedings.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`of Alfred R. Fabricant in each of the above-captioned cases is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fabricant is authorized to appear as
`back-up counsel for Patent Owner in each of the above proceedings, but he
`may not act as lead counsel;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as
`lead counsel throughout the proceedings;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01067 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2016-01141 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`IPR2016-01155 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fabricant is to comply with the
`
`Office Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set
`forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fabricant 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).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01067 (Patent 8,407,356 B1)
`IPR2016-01141 (Patent 8,458,245 B1)
`IPR2016-01155 (Patent 8,694,657 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Joseph A. Micallef Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
` iprnotices@sidley.com
` jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`Todd M. Siegel Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, OR 97204
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`
`John W. McBride Sidley Austin
`LLP One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`
`Raquel C. Rodriguez Sidley Austin LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street
`Houston, Texas 77002
` raquel.rodriguez@sidley.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter Lambrianakos Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`
`Vincent Rubino Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`
`4
`
`