UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01606
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`__________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE’S
`AMENDED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`CHRISTOPHER L. EVANS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_______________________
`
`IPR2018-01606
`
`Patent No. 7,620,800
`
`__________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE’S
`AMENDED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`CHRISTOPHER L. EVANS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe,
`
`respectfully request the pro hac vice admission of Christopher L. Evans in these
`
`proceedings.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`Section 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`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.
`As stated in the "Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission"
`
`entered in Case IPR2013-00010 (MPT) (Paper 6) ("Motorola Order"), any motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) must be filed “no sooner
`
`than (21) days after service of the petition.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts and supported by the Amended Declaration of
`
`Christopher Evans (“Evans Decl.”) submitted herewith, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`requests the pro hac vice admission of Christopher L. Evans in this proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`1. Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s lead counsel, Alfonso Chan, is a
`
`registered practitioner (Reg. No. 45,964).
`
`2. Mr. Evans is a partner at the law firm Shore Chan DePumpo LLP. Evans Decl.
`
`at ¶ 3.
`
`3. Mr. Evans is an experienced litigation attorney who has been litigating patent
`
`cases for over nine years. Id.at ¶ 5.
`
`4. Mr. Evans is co-lead counsel in concurrently pending district court
`
`proceedings involving the patent at issue here: SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regis
`
`Mohawk Tribe v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR (W.D. Wash.) Id. In that
`
`case, Plaintiffs have accused Microsoft of infringing U.S Patent Nos. 6,076,152,
`
`6,247,110, 6,434,687, 7,225,324, and 7,762,800. Id.
`
`5. In his role as co-lead counsel, Mr. Evans has acquired unique and specialized
`
`knowledge concerning all five patents asserted against Microsoft in the district court
`
`case, the field of reconfigurable computing (the field of technology to which they all
`
`pertain), and the prior art asserted in this proceeding. Id.
`
`6. Mr. Evans has been practicing since 2009 and has extensive experience
`
`litigating patent infringement cases in many different district courts across the United
`
`States. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`7. Mr. Evans has been co-lead counsel in a patent infringement trial and argued
`
`multiple Markman hearings and many other patent-related hearings. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`3
`
`
`
`8. Mr. Evans has an established and unique familiarity with tribal sovereign
`
`immunity which is a subject matter at issue in this proceeding because he represents
`
`the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and has represented other sovereign entities, such as
`
`the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. Id. at ¶ 14-15.
`
`9. As a result, Mr. Evans has unique and specialized knowledge concerning the
`
`application of tribal sovereign immunity in inter partes review. Id.
`
`10. Mr. Evans is a member in good standing of the State Bar of Texas. Id. at ¶ 7.
`
`11. Mr. Evans has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`12. No application of Mr. Evans for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body has ever been denied. Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`13. No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against Mr. Evans
`
`by any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶ 10.
`
`14. Mr. Evans has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42. Id. at ¶
`
`11.
`
`15. Mr. Evans understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary
`
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`4
`
`
`
`16. Mr. Evans has appeared pro hac vice in one consolidated set of proceedings
`
`before the Office in the last three years: Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Saint
`
`Regis Mohawk Tribe and Allergan, Inc. IPR2016-01127, -01128, -01129, -01130, -
`
`01131, -01132. Id. at ¶ 13.
`
`17. This motion was filed more than 21 days after service of the Petition in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. EVANS IN THIS PROCEEDING
`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. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Alfonso Chan, is a registered practitioner.
`
`Based on the facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Evans’s Amended
`
`Declaration, good cause exists to admit Mr. Evans pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Evans is an experience patent litigator with unique knowledge of the
`
`application of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s tribal sovereign immunity to these
`
`proceedings. And tribal sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional issue that must be
`
`decided before this case may proceed.
`
`Mr. Evans also has unique knowledge concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 6,076,152,
`
`6,247,110, 6,434,687, 7,225,324, and 7,762,800 because of his extensive work in
`
`the district court case where these patents have been asserted against Microsoft.
`
`5
`
`
`
`In view of Mr. Evans’s extensive knowledge of this subject matter, Patent
`
`Owner, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, has a substantial need for Mr. Evans’s pro hac
`
`vice admission and his involvement in the briefing and oral arguments concerning
`
`that issue.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons as well as the reasons contained in the attached
`
`affidavit, Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe respectfully requests admission
`
`of Christopher Evans as counsel pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan, Reg. No. 45,964
`achan@shorechan.com
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214-593-9110
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of Patent
`
`Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s Amended Motion For Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Christopher L. Evans Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) on February 25,
`
`2019 to the Petitioner at the electronic correspondence address of the Petitioners as
`
`follows:
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
