`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: November 18, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`YMAX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FOCAL IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case: IPR2016-01256 (Patent 8,155,298 B2) and
`Case: IPR2016-01258 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`David Brafman
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Petitioner moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. David Brafman.
`See, e.g., IPR2016-01256, Paper 10.2 Petitioner provides Declarations from
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`2 Citations herein will be to IPR2016-01256, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`IPR2016-01258 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`
`Mr. Brafman in support of its Motions. See, e.g., Id.3 Patent Owner has not
`filed an opposition to Petitioner’s Motions.
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations from Mr. Brafman, we conclude that Mr. Brafman has
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these
`cases, that Mr. Brafman has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the
`subject matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Petitioner to have
`counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in
`these cases. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for Mr.
`Brafman pro hac vice admission. Mr. Brafman will be permitted to appear
`pro hac vice in these cases as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. David Brafman, and Mr. Brafman is authorized to represent Petitioner
`as back-up counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered
`practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brafman 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
`
`
`3 Petitioner attached the Declaration of Mr. David Brafman to its Motion.
`Petitioner is reminded that such evidence must be filed as a separate exhibit
`in each proceeding and uniquely numbered sequentially in the range of
`1001–1999. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c).
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01256 (Patent 8,155,298 B2)
`IPR2016-01258 (Patent 7,764,777 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Brafman 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.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Mark Passler
`ip@akerman.com
`
`Bruce Dumais
`Brice.dumais@akerman.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brent Bumgardner
`bbumgardner@nbclaw.net
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`
`