Filed: October 23, 2017
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`One-E-Way
`By: Daphne Burton (Reg. No. 45,323)
`BURTON IP LAW GROUP
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: +1.310.867.2754
`Fax: +1.888.972.1879
`dburton@burtoniplaw.com
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Email: 2dgm@knobbe.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAYSON LEMEILLEUR TO
`APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`One-E-Way
`By: Daphne Burton (Reg. No. 45,323)
`BURTON IP LAW GROUP
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 400N
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: +1.310.867.2754
`Fax: +1.888.972.1879
`dburton@burtoniplaw.com
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Email: 2dgm@knobbe.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAYSON LEMEILLEUR TO
`APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s September 30, 2014 Notice of Filing Date (Paper 3)
`
`and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10(c) and 42.22, Patent owner ONE-E-WAY, INC. and
`
`SONY CORPORATION hereby move for an Order allowing Payson LeMeilleur
`
`of Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP to appear pro hac vice on behalf of One-
`
`E-Way, Inc. in the above-captioned case.
`
`
`
`Counsel for One-E-Way, Inc. has conferred with counsel for Petitioner Sony
`
`Corporation (“SONY”) regarding this motion, and counsel for Sony stated that
`
`they do not oppose the motion.
`
`II. LIST OF EXHIBITS RELIED UPON FOR THIS MOTION
`
`
`
`One-E-Way, Inc. Ex. 2008 - Declaration of Payson LeMeilleur in
`
`Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`III. REASONS THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED
`
`As set forth below in the Statement of Material Facts, One-E-Way, Inc. has
`
`made all of the showings required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for recognizing Mr.
`
`LeMeilleur pro hac vice. In particular, Mr. LeMeilleur is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney who has represented clients in numerous patent litigation cases in various
`
`United States District Courts and the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, including technically and legally complex matters such as will be
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`present in this proceeding. Accordingly, allowing Mr. LeMeilleur to appear pro
`
`hac vice on behalf of One-E-Way, Inc. is appropriate in this proceeding.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) provides that “[t]he 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. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who is not a
`
`registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that counsel is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel in this inter partes review proceeding is Daphne
`
`Burton. Mrs. Burton is registered to practice before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office and holds Registration No. 45,323.
`
`3.
`
`As set forth in One-E-Way, Inc. Ex. 2008 (the “LeMeilleur
`
`Declaration”), Mr. LeMeilleur is an experienced litigating attorney and has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`LeMeilleur Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3.
`
`4.
`
`In particular, Mr. LeMeilleur has 18 years of experience as a patent
`
`litigator and has represented clients in numerous patent litigation cases in various
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`United States District Courts and in the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit. Id. ¶ 2.
`
`5.
`
`Further, Mr. LeMeilleur holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
`
`Physics from the University of Southern California. Id. ¶ 2.
`
`6. Mr. LeMeilleur has not previously appeared pro hac vice in any
`
`matter before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`7. Moreover, Mr. LeMeilleur is experienced with the technical and legal
`
`matters in the field of wireless communications and has represented One-E-Way,
`
`Inc. in patent infringement actions involving subject matter related to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,282,396 (“the ’396 patent”), which is the subject of this proceeding. Id. ¶ 3.
`
`Accordingly, Mr. LeMeilleur is familiar with the ’396 patent, and with the legal
`
`and technical subject matter discussed in One-E-Way’s Response to Petition for
`
`inter partes review of the ’396 patent. Id. In view of his legal experience,
`
`technical background, and familiarity with the issues in the present matter, One-E-
`
`Way, Inc. has requested Mr. LeMeilleur’s services in the present matter. Id.
`
`8. Mr. LeMeilleur 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. Id. ¶ 8. Mr. LeMeilleur also agrees to be subject to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office 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). Id. ¶ 9.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Finally, Mr. LeMeilleur has attested to the remaining elements of
`
`Paragraph 2(b) of the representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 Id. ¶¶ 1-10; see Notice of Filing
`
`Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 3) at 2.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, and having satisfied the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c), Petitioners hereby move for an Order allowing Payson LeMeilleur of
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson, & Bear, LLP to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Patent
`
`Owner in the above-captioned case.
`
`Dated: October 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Douglas G. Muehlhauser/
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01639
`Patent 9,282,396
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), a true and correct copy of
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAYSON LEMEILLEUR TO APPEAR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER [WITH EXHIBIT 2008] is being
`
`served on October 23, 2017, via electronic mail under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) per
`
`agreement of the parties, on counsel for Petitioner Sony Corporation at the
`
`address(es) below:
`
`John Flock
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYNON LLP
`One Broadway,
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`johnflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`Paul T. Qualey
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYNON LLP
`1350 I Street NW, Ste. 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 662-2700
`paulqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`/ Douglas G. Muehlhauser/
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42,018)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`Dated: October 23, 2017
`
`
`
`053117
`26905451
`
`
`
`
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
