`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 13
`Date Entered: January 9, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORTION,
`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
`EVAN S. DAY
`
`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 7,098,343 B2; 8,924,506 B2; 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`ii.
`
`In each of the captioned proceedings, Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”)
`moves for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Evan S. Day in accordance with
`37 CFR 42.10. Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) 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).
`Evan S. Day provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`i.
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`Southern District of California;
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`before any court or administrative body;
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any
`court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448; IPR2016-00449; IPR2016-01897
`Patent 7,098,343 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);
`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 Petitioner, Bing Ai, who is a registered to practice at the
`USPTO has provided a statement of facts that Mr. Day is counsel for Petitioner in
`co-pending litigation and is familiar with the subject matter at issue in the
`captioned proceedings. Thus, Petitioner has shown good cause why Evan S. Day
`should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Day has
`provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. Therefore, Evan S. Day 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 Evan S. Day
`in each of the captioned proceedings is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Evan S. Day may not act as lead counsel in any
`of the captioned proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`counsel throughout each proceeding; and
`
`vii.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448; IPR2016-00449; IPR2016-01897
`Patent 7,098,343 B2; 8,924,506 B2; 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Evan S. Day 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 Evan S. Day 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
`Vinay Sathe
`Patrick J. McKeever
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Christopher Coulson
`Clifford Ulrich
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`4