`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
`
`