throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 18
`Date: May 12, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01116 (Patent 9,767,955 B2)
`IPR2021-01127 (Patent 9,306,635 B2)
`IPR2021-01165 (Patent 7,741,734 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and SCOTT RAEVSKY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Jeffrey G. Homrig and Blake R. Davis
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. Given the similarities of
`issues, we issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this caption style.
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01116 (Patent 9,767,955 B2)
`IPR2021-01127 (Patent 9,306,635 B2)
`IPR2021-01165 (Patent 7,741,734 B2)
`
`
`On April 28, 2022, Petitioner filed motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Jeffrey G. Homrig and Blake R. Davis in each of the above-identified
`proceedings (collectively, “Motions”). Paper 14, Paper 15.2 Petitioner also
`filed declarations from Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis in support of the Motions
`(collectively, “Declarations”). Ex. 1033, Ex. 1034.3 Petitioner attests that
`Patent Owner does not oppose the Motions. Paper 14, 1; Paper 15, 1.
`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 its notice
`authorizing motions 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 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (“Order
`– Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”) (“Unified Patents”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis have sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these
`proceedings, that Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis have demonstrated sufficient
`familiarity with the subject matter of these proceedings, that Mr. Homrig and
`
`                                                            
`2 For purposes of expediency, we cite to papers filed in IPR2021-01116.
`Petitioner filed similar Motions in IPR2021-01127 (Paper 12, Paper 13) and
`IPR2021-01165 (Paper 13, Paper 14).
`3 We cite to exhibits filed in IPR2021-01116. Petitioner filed similar
`Declarations in IPR2021-01127 (Ex. 1015, Ex. 1016) and IPR2021-01165
`(Ex. 1025, Ex. 1026).
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01116 (Patent 9,767,955 B2)
`IPR2021-01127 (Patent 9,306,635 B2)
`IPR2021-01165 (Patent 7,741,734 B2)
`
`Mr. Davis meet all other requirements for admission pro hac vice.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis. Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis will be
`permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`Upon a review of the record before us, we note that Petitioner has
`filed a Power of Attorney including Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b). Paper 1.4 Petitioner has also filed an
`updated Mandatory Notices identifying Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis as back-
`up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3). Paper 17.5
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Jeffrey G. Homrig and Blake R. Davis are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the above-identified
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis are
`authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel only in the above-
`identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis are to comply
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`(November 2019), available at
`
`                                                            
`4 Petitioner filed a similar Power of Attorney in IPR2021-01127 (Paper 1)
`and IPR2021-01165 (Paper 1).
`5 Petitioner filed a similar updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2021-01127
`(Paper 15) and IPR2021-01165 (Paper 16). 
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01116 (Patent 9,767,955 B2)
`IPR2021-01127 (Patent 9,306,635 B2)
`IPR2021-01165 (Patent 7,741,734 B2)
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated, and the Board’s
`Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Homrig and Mr. Davis shall be
`subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a),
`and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct under 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01116 (Patent 9,767,955 B2)
`IPR2021-01127 (Patent 9,306,635 B2)
`IPR2021-01165 (Patent 7,741,734 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan M. Strang
`Inge A. Osman
`Jeffrey G. Homrig
`Blake R. Davis
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`inge.osman@lw.com
`jeff.homrig@lw.com
`blake.davis@lw.com
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Joshua Griswold
`Dan Smith
`Kim Leung
`Kenneth Hoover
`W. Karl Renner
`Marc M. Wefers
`Andrew Kopsidas
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`griswold@fr.com
`dsmith@fr.com
`leung@fr.com
`hoover@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`wefers@fr.com
`kopsidas@fr.com
`
`Misha Hill
`misha.hill@witricity.com
`
`Adam R. Brausa
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket