`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`WALMART INC.; Z-SHADE CO., LTD.;
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION;
`LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC; and
`SHELTERLOGIC CORP.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01026
`Patent No. 5,944,040
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR KATHLEEN R. GEYER TO APPEAR PRO
`HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER WALMART INC.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s June 18, 2021 Notice of Filing Date Accorded
`
`(Paper 3) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.10(c) and 42.22, Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`(“Walmart”) hereby moves for an Order allowing Kathleen R. Geyer of Kilpatrick
`
`Townsend & Stockton LLP to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Walmart in the
`
`above-captioned case. Counsel for Petitioner Walmart has conferred with counsel
`
`for Patent Owner Caravan Canopy International, Inc. (“Caravan Canopy”), and
`
`Caravan Canopy does not oppose Walmart’s motion to allow Ms. Geyer to appear
`
`pro hac vice in this matter.
`
`II. LIST OF EXHIBITS RELIED UPON FOR THIS MOTION
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1051 - Declaration of Kathleen R. Geyer in Support of Motion to
`
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`
`III. REASONS THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED
`
`As set forth below in the Statement of Material Facts, Walmart has made all
`
`of the showings required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for recognizing Ms. Geyer
`
`pro hac vice. In particular, Ms. Geyer is an experienced litigation attorney who has
`
`represented clients in numerous patent litigation cases in various United States
`
`District Courts, including technically and legally complex matters such as will be
`
`present in this proceeding. Accordingly, allowing Ms. Geyer to appear pro hac vice
`
`on behalf of Walmart is appropriate in this proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) provides that “[t]he Board 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 and to any other
`
`conditions as the Board may impose. For example, where the lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who is not a
`
`registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that counsel is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in the proceeding.”
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioner in this inter partes review proceeding is
`
`David A. Reed. Mr. Reed is registered to practice before the United State Patent
`
`and Trademark Office and holds Registration No. 61,226.
`
`3.
`
`As set forth in Exhibit 1051 (“Geyer Decl.”), Ms. Geyer is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Geyer Decl., ¶2. In particular, Ms. Geyer has
`
`approximately 2 years of experience as a patent litigator and has represented
`
`clients in numerous patent litigation cases in various United States District Courts,
`
`the United States International Trade Commission, including for example:
`
` Dr. Mark A. Barry v. DePuy Synthes Products Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-
`
`03003 (E.D. Pa.)
`
`3
`
`
`
` Dr. Mark A. Barry v. Stryker Corp., No. 20-cv-01787-RGA (D. Del.)
`
` Dr. Mark A. Barry v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-
`
`00805-RGA (D. Del.)
`
` Dr. Mark A. Barry v. Orthopediatrics Corp., No. 1:20-cv-01786-RGA
`
`(D. Del.)
`
` Dr. Mark A. Barry v. SeaSpine Holdings Corp., et al., No. 21-cv-
`
`00806-RGA (D. Del.)
`
` Low Temp Industries, Inc. v. Duke Manufacturing Co., No. 4:20-cv-
`
`00686-MTS (E.D. Mo.)
`
` Nevro Corp. v. Nalu Medical, Inc., No. 20-cv-00291-CFC (D. Del.)
`
` Droplets, Inc. v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-4049-RMW (N.D. Cal.)
`
` Echologics, LLC et al. v. Orbis Intelligent Systems, Inc., et al., No.
`
`19-cv-02036-RGA (D. Del.)
`
` Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-06978-
`
`ADS-PSG (C.D. Cal.)
`
` Prolitec Inc. v. ScentAir Technologies, LLC, No. 20-cv-00984-RGA
`
`(D. Del.)
`
` Certain Vacuum Insulated Flasks and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-1216 (USITC)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`4. With regard to U.S. Patent 5,944,040 (“the ’040 patent”), the patent at
`
`issue in this proceeding, Ms. Geyer is very familiar with the ’040 patent, and with
`
`the legal subject matter, technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in
`
`Walmart’s request for inter partes review of the ’040 patent. Id., ¶3. Under the
`
`supervision of lead counsel, Ms. Geyer has been substantively involved in the
`
`preparation of Petitioner Walmart’s papers in this proceeding. Id. Ms. Geyer also is
`
`counsel for Walmart in the patent infringement civil action, Caravan Canopy Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-06978-ADS-PSG (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9,
`
`2019), where the same patent that is the subject of this inter partes review
`
`proceeding, the ’040 patent, is asserted against Walmart. Id. Walmart desires that
`
`Ms. Geyer appear to represent Walmart in this proceeding.
`
`5. Ms. Geyer has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of
`
`Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Id., ¶ 9. Ms. Geyer also agrees to be
`
`subject to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., and disciplinary jurisdiction under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id., ¶ 10. Ms. Geyer has not previously appeared before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Id., ¶11.
`
`6.
`
`Finally, Ms. Geyer has attested to the remaining elements of
`
`Paragraph 2(b) of the representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`
`5
`
`
`
`Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7. Id., ¶¶ 4–11; see Notice of
`
`Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 3) at 2.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, and having satisfied the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c), Walmart hereby moves for an Order allowing Kathleen R. Geyer of
`
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, to appear pro hac vice on behalf of
`
`Walmart in the above-captioned case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /David A. Reed/
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Walmart Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNOPPOSED
`
`MOTION FOR KATHLEEN R. GEYER TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE ON
`
`BEHALF OF PETITIONER WALMART INC. is being served on counsel of
`
`record for Patent Owner via email to the address below.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kyle W. Kellar
`KKellar@lrrc.com
`
`Jason C. Martone
`JMartone@lrrc.com
`
`Sami I. Schilly
`SSchilly@lrrc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /David A. Reed/
`David A. Reed
`Reg. No. 61,226
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Walmart Inc.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
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
