throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper No.36
`Filed: January 9, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
` CANON INC., CANON U.S.A., INC., and
`AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-003141
`Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN and KIMBERLY McGRAW,
`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.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314 (Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1)
`
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation (“Patent Owner”) filed unopposed
`motions for the pro hac vice admission of Michael W. De Vries, Mr. Adam
`R. Alper, and Mr. Akshay S. Deora in each of the above referenced
`proceedings. See Paper 7.2 Petitioner did not oppose.
`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. 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).
`Patent Owner asserts there is good cause for us to recognize
`Mr. De Vries pro hac vice. Paper 8, 2–5, 9–10. Patent Owner’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. Id. ¶ 5. In addition, Mr. De Vries’s Declaration
`complies with the other requirements for pro hac vice admission. Id. ¶¶ 1–
`13; see Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`Patent Owner further asserts there is good cause for us to recognize
`Mr. Alper pro hac vice. Paper 8, 5–7, 10. Patent Owner’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
`
`
`2 For convenience, paper and exhibit numbers refer to IPR2019-00311;
`corresponding papers may be found in the record of IPR2019-00314.
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314 (Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1)
`
`issue in this proceeding. Id. ¶ 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, Patent Owner asserts there is good cause for us to recognize
`Mr. Deoras pro hac vice. Paper 8, 7–11. Patent Owner’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. Id. ¶ 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 Patent Owner has established good cause for the pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras in each of the above
`referenced proceedings.
`It is, therefore, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s unopposed motions
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Michael W. De Vries, Mr. Adam R.
`Alper, and Mr. Akshay S. Deoras to represent Patent Owner in each of the
`above reference proceedings are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. De Vries, Mr. Alper, and Mr. Deoras
`are authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only in each of
`the above referenced proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314 (Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1)
`
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00311, IPR2019-00314 (Patent 7,932,923 B2 & C1)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`Joseph Calvaruso
`Richard Martinelli
`ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
`jvcptabdocket@orrick.com
`rfmptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Eugene Goryunov
`eugene.goryunov@haynesboone.com
`
`Michael W. De Vries
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket