`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TENNANT COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OXYGENATOR WATER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00625
`
`Patent No. RE45,415
`
`Reissue Date: March 17, 2015
`
`
`Title: FLOW-THROUGH OXYGENATOR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed by Tennant
`
`Company (“Tennant”) in the IPR proceeding captioned in the title page of this
`
`submission. Petitioner requests the admission of Adam R. Steinert pro hac vice in
`
`the IPR proceeding captioned above. Petitioner submits herewith a Declaration of
`
`Adam R. Steinert in Support of this Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`
`Mr. Steinert is well-versed in the technical and legal issues raised in the IPR
`
`Petition and is especially qualified to serve as backup counsel for Tennant in this
`
`matter. As explained in the attached declaration, Mr. Steinert has an undergraduate
`
`degree in physics from Harvard University, and has specialized in patent litigation
`
`for the past 17 years. (See Steinert Decl. ¶¶ 9-12.) Mr. Steinert has experience
`
`with a wide range of electrical and chemical technologies relevant to this IPR
`
`proceeding. (See id. ¶¶ 11-12.)
`
`Mr. Steinert is also particularly well versed in the subject matter and
`
`procedural history of the challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. RE45,415 (“the ʼ415
`
`patent”). (See id. ¶ 13.) Mr. Steinert was intimately involved in the drafting of the
`
`Petitions for IPR in this proceeding and the companion proceeding challenging the
`
`’415 patent (case no. IPR2021-00602) (See id.)
`
`In the course of his representation of Tennant, Mr. Steinert has reviewed and
`
`analyzed the ʼ415 patent and its prosecution history in detail. (See id.) He has also
`
`reviewed and analyzed the referenced prior art, all of the exhibits to the IPR
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition, and, of course, the Petition itself. (See id.) Mr. Steinert has a particularly
`
`high level of knowledge regarding Tennant’s prior art contentions raised in this
`
`Petition and the companion IPR2021-00602 proceeding because Mr. Steinert
`
`assisted in drafting Tennant’s submissions. (See id.)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Board’s Order in IPR2013-00639,
`
`Paper No. 7, Tennant further notes that Mr. Steinert is a member in good standing
`
`of the state bars of Minnesota and New York and is admitted to practice before
`
`multiple federal courts. (See Steinert Decl. ¶ 2.) No court or administrative body
`
`has ever (a) suspended or disbarred him from practice; (b) denied his application to
`
`practice; or (c) sanctioned him or cited him for contempt. (See id. ¶¶ 3-5.) Mr.
`
`Steinert has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials. (See id. ¶ 6.) He has also acknowledged
`
`that he will be subject to the USPTO 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).
`
`(See id. ¶ 7.) Mr. Steinert has previously applied to appear pro hac vice before the
`
`Board in nine cases, including in four cases within the last three years, IPR2015-
`
`00482, IPR2015-00491, IPR2016-01460, IPR2016-01463, IPR2017-00202,
`
`IPR2018-01389, IPR2018-01391, IPR2018-01392, and IPR2018-01394. (See id. ¶
`
`8.) The Board granted all of those applications, and Mr. Steinert argued on behalf
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`of the petitioner at the oral hearing in all five cases that proceeded to oral
`
`argument. (See id.)
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Tennant respectfully requests that this
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission be granted, and that Adam R. Steinert be
`
`admitted to appear pro hac vice in the IPR proceeding captioned above.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/R. Scott Johnson/
`R. Scott Johnson
`RSJohnson@fredlaw.com
`Attorney for the Petitioner
`Registration No. 45,792
`
`Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
`505 E. Grand Ave., Suite 200
`Des Moines, IA 50309
`
`Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`Declaration of Adam R. Steinert in Support of
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`
`I, Adam R. Steinert, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a shareholder with Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., and am one of the
`
`lawyers representing Petitioner Tennant Company (“Tennant”) in connection with
`
`the IPR Proceeding captioned on the title page of this submission and the related
`
`IPR proceeding, IPR2021-00602.
`
`2.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the following Bars: State of
`
`Minnesota, State of New York, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Minnesota, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and U.S.
`
`District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
`
`3.
`
`I have never received a suspension or disbarment from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body.
`
`4.
`
`I have never been denied any application or admission to practice
`
`before any court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`I have never been sanctioned by or received contempt citations from
`
`any court or administrative body.
`
`6.
`
`I have 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 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO 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).
`
`8.
`
`I have previously applied to appear pro hac vice before the Board in
`
`nine cases, including in four cases within the last three years, IPR2015-00482,
`
`IPR2015-00491, IPR2016-01460, IPR2016-01463, IPR2017-00202, IPR2018-
`
`01389, IPR2018-01391, IPR2018-01392, and IPR2018-01394. The Board granted
`
`all of those applications, and I argued on behalf of the petitioner at the oral hearing
`
`in all five cases that proceeded to oral argument.
`
`9.
`
`Although I am not registered to practice with the USPTO, I earned the
`
`degree of A.B., cum laude in Physics, from Harvard University in 2001.
`
`10. Since my graduation from New York University School of Law in
`
`2004, I have specialized in intellectual property litigation, and the vast majority of
`
`my practice is patent and technology trade secret litigation and counselling. I have
`
`appeared in patent litigation cases across the country, including appearances before
`
`the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the
`
`Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of Minnesota, the
`
`Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, the District of Delaware, the Northern and
`
`Southern Districts of California, the Northern District of Illinois, the Western
`
`District of Washington, the Eastern District of Virginia, the Western District of
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Oklahoma, the District of New Jersey, and before the U.S. International Trade
`
`Commission.
`
`11. Through my undergraduate education and intellectual property
`
`litigation practice, I have experience with a wide range of electrical, mechanical,
`
`chemical, and software technologies. Particularly relevant to this IPR, in addition
`
`to undergraduate coursework in electricity and electronics, I have laboratory
`
`experience designing electronic circuits and litigation experience involving
`
`electronic devices including defibrillators, infusion pumps, wireless intercoms,
`
`lighting circuitry, and computer peripherals. I also have litigation experience with
`
`chemical technologies ranging from polymer coatings to semiconductor
`
`fabrication.
`
`12. The following is an exemplary – but not exclusive – list of patent
`
`cases in which I have made appearances:
`
`Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Baxter Corp. Englewood, v. Becton, Dickinson
`and Co., S.D. Ca. Case No. 3:17-cv-02186 JLS-RBB
`Baxter Int’l, Inc., v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:17-cv-
`07576
`Baxter Int’l, Inc., v. CareFusion Corp., N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:15-cv-09986
`
`E-Numerate Sols., Inc. and E-Numerate, LLC v. Mattress Firm Holding
`Corp., Merrill Commc’ns LLC and Merrill Corp., D. Del. Case No. 17-933-
`RGA
`3M Co. v. XPEL Technologies Corp., D. Minn. Case No. 15-cv-04576
`(WMW/SER)
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`3M Co. v. HM Electronics, Inc., D. Minn. Case No. 14-cv-1000 (SRN/JSM)
`3M Co. v. HM Electronics, Inc., D. Minn. Case No. 12-cv-553 (SRN/JSM)
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., D. Minn. Case No. 13-cv-971
`(PJS/TNL)
`IOENGINE, LLC v. Imation Corp., et al., D. Del. Case No. 1:14-cv-1572
`(GMS)
`Richmond v. Import Specialties, Inc., et al., D.N.J. Case Nos. 3:14-cv-4827,
`3:14-cv-4874, 3:14-cv-4876, 3:14-cv-4885 (MLC/DEA)
`Humanscale Corp. v. Mass Engineered Design, Inc., E.D. Va. Case No.
`1:13-cv-535 (CMH/IDD)
`Ferrellgas Real Estate, Inc. v. Unique Value Marketing LLC, E.D.N.Y. Case
`No. 2:13-cv-3496 (JG/SIL)
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. NPV Group LLC, D. Minn. Case No. 12-cv-
`1470 (JRT/JJK)
`Silver Screen Tele-Reality, Inc. v. Dealer Impact Systems, L.L.C., N.D. Tex.
`Case No. 3:11-cv-2351-K
`Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., D. Minn. Case No. 11-
`cv-820 (ADM/JSM)
`Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Inpro/Seal Co., N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:10-cv-3978
`Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v. 9X Media, Inc., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:09-
`cv-358 (JRG)
`Cardiac Science Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., D. Minn.
`Case No. 03-cv-1064 (DWF/RLE)
`Voda v. Cordis Corp., W.D. Okla. Case No. 5:03-cv-01512-L
`13.
`I am very familiar with the subject matter at issue in this IPR
`
`proceeding. I was intimately involved in drafting the Petitions for IPR filed in this
`
`proceeding and the companion proceeding challenging U.S. Patent No. RE45,415,
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`(case no. IPR2021-00602). In conjunction with my work drafting the Petition for
`
`the present IPR, I closely reviewed the subject ʼ415 patent, its prosecution file
`
`history, the referenced prior art, all of the exhibits to the IPR Petition, and, of
`
`course, the Petition I assisted in drafting.
`
`
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct to the best of my present knowledge and recollection.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`/Adam R. Steinert/
`
` Adam R. Steinert
`FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
`200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
`Telephone: 612.492.7000
`Facsimile: 612.492.7077
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE45,415
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion for
`
`
`
`
`
`Pro Hac Vice Admission was filed via PTAB E2E and served pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.6(e) via electronic mail on March 12, 2021 on the following:
`
`Larina Alton (gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com)
`3300 Wells Fargo Center
`90 South Seventh Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
`Telephone: 612.672.8200
`
`Nathan Louwagie
`(nlouwagie@carlsoncaspers.com; owt@carlsoncaspers.com)
`Capella Tower, Suite 4200
`225 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 612.436.9600
`
`
`
`
`/R. Scott Johnson/
`R. Scott Johnson
`RSJohnson@fredlaw.com
`Counsel for Petitioners
`Reg. No. 45,792
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`
`
`72394107 v2
`
`
`
`