`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`Entered: May 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`TIDE INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UPL NA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2020-01113
`Patent 7,473,685 B2
`
`
`
`
`Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, ZHENYU YANG, and
`MICHAEL A. VALEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`VALEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Bailey K. Benedict
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01113
`Patent 7,473,685 B2
`
`
`
`Tide International (USA), Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for pro
`hac vice admission of Bailey K. Benedict in the above-listed proceeding
`(“Motion”). Paper 16. Petitioner also filed a supporting declaration from
`Ms. Benedict. Ex. 1038. Petitioner states that the Motion is unopposed.
`Paper 16, 3.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the 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. In authorizing a
`motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires 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 this
`proceeding. See Paper 5, 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”)).
`We have reviewed the submission and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) have been met, and that there is good
`cause to admit Ms. Benedict pro hac vice. We note, however, that a Power
`of Attorney in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) has not been filed for
`Ms. Benedict. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is conditionally granted,
`provided that Petitioner timely files the aforementioned Power of Attorney.
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Bailey K.
`Benedict is granted on the condition that, within ten business days of the
`date of this order, Petitioner will submit a Power of Attorney for
`Ms. Benedict in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01113
`Patent 7,473,685 B2
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file an updated
`mandatory notice identifying Ms. Benedict as back-up counsel in accordance
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceeding, but that
`Ms. Benedict is authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Benedict shall comply with the
`Consolidated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov.
`21, 2019)) and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42
`of 37 C.F.R.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Benedict is subject to the USPTO’s
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to
`the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01113
`Patent 7,473,685 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dorothy Whelan
`Thad Kodish
`Jacqueline Tio
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`whelan@fr.com
`tkodish@fr.com
`tio@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Maximilienne Giannelli
`Anand Sharma
`Rajeev Gupta
`Joshua Goldberg
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`Maximilienne.Giannelli@finnegan.com
`Anand.sharma@finnegan.com
`Raj.Gupta@finnegan.com
`Joshua.Goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`
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
