`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
`
`