`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-018411
`Patent 7,893,501
`____________
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`JOSHUA J. MILLER
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01842 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`6080148.1
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`2001 Declaration of Joshua J. Miller in Support of Motion for Admission Pro
`Hac Vice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and Paper No. 3, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`(“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`admit Joshua J. Miller pro hac vice in this proceeding, IPR2017-01841. Patent
`
`Owner is concurrently seeking admission of Mr. Miller pro hac vice in related case
`
`IPR2017-01843.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE
`BOARD TO RECOGNIZE COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE DURING
`THE PROCEEDING
`
`In accordance with 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
`
`that the Board may impose. Section 42.10(c) indicates that “where 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 a showing that counsel is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in the proceeding.” The facts here establish good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Miller pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`First, as set forth in Mr. Miller’s declaration (Ex. 2001) at paragraphs H
`
`through J, Mr. Miller has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in these
`
`proceedings. He has worked on preparing and reviewing the materials submitted
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`Second, Mr. Miller has extensive patent litigation experience and is expected
`
`to use his experience to support Lead Counsel during the proceedings, including
`
`during depositions. Good cause exists to have Patent Owner appoint as counsel
`
`Mr. Miller, as a litigator, to assist Lead Counsel.
`
`Furthermore, as set forth in his declaration, Mr. Miller attests to all of the
`
`remaining matters set forth in Paper No. 7 from Unified Patents v. Parallel Iron,
`
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Joshua J. Miller pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: March 14, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By /Gerald B. Hrycyszyn/
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Reg. No. 50,474
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Edmund J. Walsh, Reg. No. 32,950
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000/Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (e)(4)
`
`I certify that on March 14, 2018, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits referred to therein, to be served via electronic
`
`mail, as previously consented to by Petitioner, upon the following:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Dominic E. Massa
`
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`
`Michael H. Smith
`
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`Date: March 14, 2018
`
`/MacAulay Rush /
`MacAulay Rush
`Patent Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`