IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION, and OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2017-004431
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`PRO HAC VICE OF ANDREW V. DEVKAR
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01682 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ZTE CORPORATION,
`OLYMPUS CORPORATION, and OLYMPUS AMERICA INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2017-004431
`Patent 6,470,399 B1
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`PRO HAC VICE OF ANDREW V. DEVKAR
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01682 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 B1
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10, Olympus Corporation and Olympus
`
`America Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) requests that the Board admit Andrew
`
`V. Devkar pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Pursuant to 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 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.
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(c). The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Andrew
`
`V. Devkar in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Devkar Decl.”),
`
`establish good cause to admit Mr. Devkar pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`1. Lead counsel Dion M. Bregman is a registered practitioner and is
`
`experienced in inter partes proceedings in the USPTO.
`
`2. Backup counsel Ahren Hsu-Hoffman is a registered practitioner
`
`and is experienced in inter partes proceedings in the USPTO.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 B1
`3. Andrew V. Devkar is an experienced litigation attorney and has
`
`been litigating patent cases for approximately thirteen years. (Devkar Decl. ¶ 1).
`
`Mr. Devkar is a member in good standing of the California State Bar, with no
`
`suspensions or disbarments from practice, nor any application for admission to
`
`practice denied, nor any sanctions or contempt citations, and is admitted to practice
`
`in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States
`
`District Courts for the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of
`
`California. (Id. ¶¶ 2-5).
`
`4. Mr. Devkar has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding based on his work as counsel in the pending district court case In re:
`
`Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation – MDL No. 1880, Case No. 07-
`
`mc-00493 (D.D.C.), which involves the same patent at issue in this proceeding.
`
`(Id. ¶ 6). Mr. Devkar has represented Olympus Corporation and Olympus America
`
`Inc. in this district court case since 2008. He has been actively involved in all
`
`aspects of the pending district court case, including proceedings related to issues of
`
`invalidity of the patent-at-issue in this proceeding and related patents-in-suit. (Id. ¶
`
`7). Since 2008, Mr. Devkar has been centrally involved in analyzing and drafting
`
`invalidity contentions relating to the patent-at-issue in this proceeding, including
`
`with respect to the prior art references at issue in this proceeding. (Id.).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 B1
`5. Mr. Devkar has a Computer Science degree from Stanford
`
`University and is knowledgeable regarding the technology in the patent-at-issue
`
`and this proceeding (including software and hardware for host computers and
`
`peripherals, interfaces, drivers, file systems, and related issues). (Id. ¶ 6)
`
`6. Mr. Devkar has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`
`37 C.F.R, and he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§10.20 et seq., and to disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §11.19(a). (Id. ¶¶ 8-9). While Mr. Devkar has not
`
`previously applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office, he is concurrently
`
`applying for admission pro hac vice in IPR2017-00714 and IPR2017-00415. (Id.
`
`¶10).
`
`7. Patent Owner Papst Licensing GMBH & Co., KG has indicated
`
`that this Motion will not be opposed. Petitioner ZTE Corporation and Petitioner
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. have also indicated that this Motion will not be opposed.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Devkar Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr. Devkar pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. §42.10. Lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, Mr. Devkar is an experienced patent litigation attorney, and Mr.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,470,399 B1
`Devkar has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board admit Andrew V. Devkar pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`Date: November 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Dion M. Bregman /
`By:
`Dion M. Bregman
`Reg. No. 45,645
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road,
`Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`Telephone: 650.843.7519
`Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on November 16,
`
`
`
`2017, a copy of the foregoing PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`
`ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF ANDREW V. DEVKAR PURSUANT TO
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 has been served in its entirety by e-mail on the following
`
`addresses of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Gregory S. Donahue
`Minghui Yang
`DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
`7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
`Austin, Texas 78731
`{gdonahue,myang,docketing}@dpelaw.com
`
`Anthony L. Meola
`SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS LLP
`2500 Westchester Avenue, Suite 210
`Purchase, New York 10577
`ameola@iplawusa.com
`
`Jason A. Murphy
`Victor J. Baranowski
`Arlen L. Olsen
`SCHMEISER OLSEN & WATTS LLP
`22 Century Hill Drive, Suite 302
`Latham, New York 12110
`{jmurphy,vbaranowski,aolsen}@iplawusa.com
`
`
`
` / Dion M. Bregman /
`Dion M. Bregman
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 45,645
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
