`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 15
`Entered: September 11, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`GUEST TEK INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JASON W. MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MELVIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Payson LeMeilleur and Kendall M. Loebbaka
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order is being entered in each of the above-identified proceedings.
`The proceedings have not been consolidated and the parties are not
`authorized to use a consolidated caption.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed motions in the above-captioned proceedings,
`
`requesting pro hac vice admission of Payson LeMeilleur (Paper 11) and
`
`Kendall M. Loebbaka (Paper 12).2 The motions are supported, respectively,
`
`by declarations of Mr. LeMeilleur (Ex. 2002) and Ms. Loebbaka (Ex. 2003).
`
`Patent Owner attests that Petitioner does not oppose the motions. Paper 11,
`
`1; Paper 12, 1.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`
`moving party to provide 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 the proceeding. See Paper 4, 2 (citing
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for
`
`Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`
`Based on the facts set forth in the motions and accompanying
`
`declarations, we conclude that Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka have
`
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in
`
`these proceedings, that Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka each has
`
`demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of these
`
`proceedings, and that there is a need for Patent Owner to be represented by
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to papers and exhibits filed in
`IPR2019-00211. Patent Owner filed similar motions for Mr. LeMeilleur
`(Paper 11) and Ms. Loebbaka (Paper 12) and declarations of Mr. LeMeilleur
`(Ex. 2002) and Ms. Loebbaka (Ex. 2003) in IPR2019-00253.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922 B2)
`
`
`counsel with litigation experience. See Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 2–5; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 2–5.3
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka. Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms.
`
`Loebbaka will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c).
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice admission
`
`of Payson LeMeilleur and Kendall M. Loebbaka are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner shall continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant
`
`proceedings, but that Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka are each authorized
`
`to act as back-up counsel;
`
` FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file, within ten (10)
`
`business days, a Power of Attorney for Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka in
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner must file, within ten (10)
`
`business days, updated mandatory notices identifying Mr. LeMeilleur and
`
`Ms. Loebbaka as back-up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.8(b)(3);
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. LeMeilleur shall comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, including the August 2018 Update (83
`
`Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018)) and the July 2019 Update (84 Fed. Reg.
`
`33,925 (July 16, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set
`
`
`3 Mr. LeMeilleur and Ms. Loebbaka each declares that he or she will comply
`with part 42 of the C.F.R., rather than part 42 of 37 C.F.R. Ex. 2002 ¶ 10;
`Ex. 2003 ¶ 10. We deem this harmless error.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922 B2)
`
`
`forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. LeMeilleur shall 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.;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Loebbaka shall comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, including the August 2018 Update (83
`
`Fed. Reg. 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018)) and the July 2019 Update (84 Fed. Reg.
`
`33,925 (July 16, 2019)), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set
`
`forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Loebbaka shall 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
`
` 4
`
`
`
`seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00211 (Patent 7,953,857 B2)
`Case IPR2019-00253 (Patent 8,626,922 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey W. Lesovitz
`Steven J. Rocci
`Daniel J. Goettle
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`jlesovitz@bakerlaw.com
`srocci@bakerlaw.com
`dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`William H. Shreve
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2dgm@knobbe.com
`2whs@knobbe.com
`boxnomadix@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`