`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 18
`Entered: September 18, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Rolf O. Stadheim
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner, Daniel L. Flamm (“Flamm”), filed a Motion for
`Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr. Rolf O. Stadheim. Paper 17 (“Mot.”).
`Petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., does not oppose this Motion.
`Mot. 2. For the reasons provided below, Flamm’s Motion is granted.
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`Lead counsel for Flamm, Christopher Frerking, is a registered
`practitioner. Mot. 1; Paper 4, 2. Flamm asserts that there is good cause for
`us to recognize Mr. Stadheim pro hac vice in this proceeding. Mot. 1–2.
`Flamm’s assertions in this regard are supported by a Declaration of Mr.
`Stadheim. Ex. 2003.
`Mr. Stadheim declares that he is a member in good standing of the
`State Bar of Illinois, and that he is admitted to practice before several district
`courts. Ex. 2003 ¶ 2. Mr. Stadheim also declares that he is familiar with the
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding, particularly because he has
`reviewed U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 E and the asserted prior art. Mot. 2;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 6. Moreover, the facts alleged in Mr. Stadheim’s Declaration
`comply with all the requirements set forth in our representative Order
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 1, 3–5, 7,
`10; Mot. 1–2.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Stadheim has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Flamm in this proceeding.
`Accordingly, Flamm has established that there is good cause for the pro hac
`vice admission of Mr. Stadheim.
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Flamm’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Mr.
`Rolf O. Stadheim is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Stadheim is authorized to represent
`Flamm as back-up counsel in this proceeding only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Flamm is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Stadheim shall comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), and
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37,
`Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Stadheim shall be subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the
`Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
`et seq.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01512
`Patent RE40,264 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Chetan R. Bansal
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`PH-Samsung-Flamm-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`