`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 10
`Filed: March 7, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB,. CANON INC.,
`and CANON U.S.A., INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2019-00235, IPR2019-002361
`Patent 7,868,912 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, KIMBERLY McGRAW, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Pro Hac Vice Admissions of
`Michael W. De Vries, Adam R. Alper, and Akshay S. Deoras
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in both above-referenced
`proceedings. We issue a single order in these two proceedings for
`convenience. The parties, however, are not authorized to use this style
`heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235, IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2
`
`
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress Corporation (“Avigilon”) filed a
`Motion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), for Michael W. De Vries,
`Mr. Adam R. Alper, and Mr. Akshay S. Deoras to appear pro hac vice on its
`behalf before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in each of the above
`referenced proceedings. See Paper 8.2 Petitioner did not file an opposition.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. Patent Owner’s lead
`counsel in each proceeding, Eugene Goryunov, is a registered practitioner.
`Paper 5, 1.
`A motion for pro hac vice admission must also contain a statement of
`facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac vice
`during the proceeding and be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of
`the individual seeking to appear. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron,
`LLC, IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7)
`(setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
` Avigilon asserts there is good cause for us to recognize Mr. De Vries
`pro hac vice. Paper 8, 2–5, 9–10. Avigilon’s assertions in this regard are
`supported by a Declaration of Mr. De Vries. Ex. 2001. In his declaration,
`Mr. De Vries states he has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`proceeding. Ex. 2001 ¶ 5. In addition, Mr. De Vries’s Declaration complies
`
`
`2 For convenience, paper and exhibit numbers refer to IPR2019-00235;
`corresponding papers may be found in the record of IPR2019-00236.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235, IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2
`
`with the other requirements for pro hac vice admission. Id. ¶¶ 1–13; see
`Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`Avigilon further asserts there is good cause for us to recognize Mr.
`Alper pro hac vice. Paper 8, 5–7, 10. Avigilon’s assertions in this regard
`are supported by a Declaration of Mr. Alper. Ex. 2002. In his declaration,
`Mr. Alper states he has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`proceeding. Ex. 2002 ¶ 4. In addition, Mr. Alper’s Declaration complies
`with the other requirements for pro hac vice admission. Id. ¶¶ 1– 12; see
`Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`Finally, Avigilon asserts there is good cause for us to recognize Mr.
`Deoras pro hac vice. Paper 8, 7–11. Avigilon’s assertions in this regard are
`supported by a Declaration of Mr. Deoras. Ex. 2003. In his declaration, Mr.
`Deoras states he has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`proceeding. Ex. 2003 ¶ 4. Mr. Deoras’s Declaration also complies with the
`other requirements for pro hac vice admission. Id. ¶¶ 1– 12; see Unified
`Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`After reviewing the motions and supporting Declarations, we
`determine that Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras each have sufficient
`qualifications to represent Avigilon and that Avigilon has established good
`cause for their admission. Accordingly, Avigilon’s the Motions for pro hac
`vice admission of Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras in each of the
`above referenced proceedings are granted.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235, IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2
`
`
`II. ORDER
`It is therefore ORDERED that Avigilon’s unopposed motion for pro
`hac vice admission of Mr. Michael W. De Vries, Mr. Adam R. Alper, and
`Mr. Akshay S. Deoras to represent Avigilon in each of the above referenced
`proceedings is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras
`are authorized to represent Avigilon as back-up counsel only in each of the
`above referenced proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Avigilon is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in each of the above
`referenced proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras
`shall comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the
`August 2018 Update, 83 Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), and the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code
`of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras
`shall be subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 11.19(a), as well as the Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00235, IPR2019-00236
`Patent 7,868,912 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`Jessica L.A. Marks
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`jessica.marks@finnegan.com
`
`CANON INC. AND CANON U.S.A., INC.
`Joseph A. Calvaruso
`Richard F. Martinelli
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`jcalvaruso@orrick.com
`rfmptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eugene Goryunov
`Michael Dokhanchy
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`Reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`