`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 17
`
`
`Entered: September 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and MINN CHUNG,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Michael N. Zachary
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`Bradium Technologies, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion
`requesting pro hac vice admission of Michael N. Zachary in this proceeding
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, and provided a Declaration from Mr.
`Zachary in support of its request. See Paper 9; Ex. 2003. United Patents
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) does not oppose the Motion. For the reasons provided
`below, Patent Owner’s Motion is granted.
`
`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 Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`Michael N. Zachary provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`is a member in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`i.
`the District of Columbia;
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from
`practice before any court or administrative body;
`
`ii.
`
`2
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`iii.
`
`has never had any application for admission to practice before
`any court or administrative body denied;
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed
`by any court or administrative body;
`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);
`vii. 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 this
`proceeding.
`Lead counsel for Patent Owner, Chris J. Coulson, who is registered to
`practice at the USPTO has provided a statement of facts that Mr. Zachary is
`counsel for Patent Owner in related district court litigation and is familiar
`with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Thus, Patent Owner has
`shown good cause why Michael N. Zachary should be recognized pro hac
`vice for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Zachary has provided the requisite
`affidavit or declaration. Therefore, Michael N. Zachary has complied with
`the requirements for admission pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`
`II. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Michael N. Zachary is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary may not act as lead
`counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary is to comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Michael N. Zachary 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00952
`Patent 9,253,239 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jonathan Stroud
`Roshan Suresh Mansinghani
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Daniel V. Williams
`Jonathan E. Robe
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`roshan@unifiedpatents.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com
`jonathan.robe@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Chris J. Coulson
`Lauren N. Robinson
`Michael N. Zachary
`Michael E. Shanahan
`ccoulson@bdiplaw.com
`lrobinson@bdiplaw.com
`mzachary@bdiplaw.com
`mshanahan@generalpatent.com
`
`5
`
`
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
