`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 24
`Date: February 18, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00179 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
` IPR2020-00195 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
`KIMBERLY MCGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Counsel
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both listed cases. The parties may not use this style
`heading unless authorized.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`IPR2020-00195 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`
`Counsel may withdraw from an inter partes review proceeding only
`with authorization from the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e). In these
`proceedings, Bradford A. Cangro and Jeremy D. Peterson were designated
`as back-up counsel. IPR2020-00179, Paper 2, 3; IPR2020-00195, Paper 2,
`3. On January 20, 2021, Petitioner filed an Updated Mandatory Notice in
`each proceeding, explaining that Mr. Cangro and Mr. Peterson “no longer
`represent Petitioner in this proceeding and therefore should no longer be
`listed as back-up counsel.” IPR2020-00179, Paper 20; IPR2020-00195,
`Paper 20.
`On February 8, 2021, during the oral hearing, citing 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(e), the Board informed Petitioner’s counsel that additional action
`was required to withdraw Mr. Cangro and Mr. Peterson as counsel.
`On February 9, 2021, by email, Petitioner “request[ed] authorization
`to withdraw Bradford Cangro and Jeremy Peterson as its counsel” in these
`proceedings.2 Ex. 3002. Petitioner further represents, as also set forth in the
`earlier-filed Papers 20, that “Mr. Cangro and Mr. Peterson are no longer
`associated with the law firm representing Petitioner, Morgan, Lewis &
`Bockius.” Id. Petitioner also represents that it “continues to be represented
`by Dion Bregman, Collin Park, Andrew Devkar, and [Alex Stein], all of
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.” Id. Petitioner also represents that Petitioner
`has “met and conferred with Patent Owner’s counsel concerning this request
`and Patent Owner’s counsel indicated that they do not oppose this request.”
`Id.
`
`
`2 With the Board’s direction given during the February 8, 2021, oral hearing,
`we deem that the February 9, 2021, email suffices as an authorized motion in
`this particular circumstance. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(a)–(b).
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`IPR2020-00195 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`
`Under these circumstances, we grant Petitioner’s unopposed motion to
`withdraw Mr. Cangro and Mr. Peterson as counsel.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion is granted, and Mr. Cangro and
`Mr. Peterson are withdrawn as counsel from these proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`IPR2020-00195 (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`Collin Park
`MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`LG-ImmerVision-IPRs@morganlewis.com
`Dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`Andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`Collin.park@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen Murray
`John Simmons
`Dennis Butler
`Keith Jones
`PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL
`smurrary@panitchlaw.com
`jsimmons@panitchlaw.com
`dbutler@panitchlaw.com
`kjones@panitchlaw.com
`
`4
`
`
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
