Filed on behalf of: Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: April 28, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2021-01166
`Patent 8,304,935
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF BLAKE R. DAVIS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: April 28, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`
`
`
`MOMENTUM DYNAMICS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WITRICITY CORPORATION
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case IPR2021-01166
`Patent 8,304,935
`______________________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF BLAKE R. DAVIS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`PHV Admission
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition
`
`and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 5), Petitioner
`
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation (“Petitioner’”) respectfully requests the pro hac
`
`vice admission of attorney Blake R. Davis, Esq. in this proceeding. Petitioner’s have
`
`conferred with counsel for WiTricity Corporation (“Patent Owner”), and Patent
`
`Owner does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under 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 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.
`
`The Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent
`
`Owner Preliminary Response (Paper No. 5) further instructs:
`
`The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of
`counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause. The parties are
`authorized to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). Such motions shall be filed in accordance with the “Order
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`PHV Admission
`
`-- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-
`00639, Paper 7, a copy of which is available on the Board Web site
`under “Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.”
`
`(Id. at 2.) The above referenced “Order - - Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” further provides:
`
`A motion for pro hac vice admission must:
`
`a.
`
`Contain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board
`
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding.
`
`b.
`
`Be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking
`
`to appear attesting to the following:
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`
`the District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with
`
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and Board’s Rules of
`
`Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`PHV Admission
`
`The individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`
`vi.
`
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii.
`
`All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual
`
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`(IPR2013-00639, Paper No. 7 at 3.) As set forth below, and in the accompanying
`
`Declaration of Blake R. Davis (Ex. 1027, “Davis Decl.”), each of these requirements
`
`is satisfied here.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS SHOWING GOOD CAUSE FOR THE
`BOARD TO RECOGNIZE BLAKE R. DAVIS PRO HAC VICE IN THIS
`PROCEEDING
`Mr. Davis is a member in good standing of the California Bar (Bar No.
`
`294360) and admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, United States District Court for the Central District of California,
`
`the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
`
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Davis Decl. ¶ 2.) Mr.
`
`Davis has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body. (Id. ¶ 3.) No application of Mr. Davis for admission to practice
`
`before any court or administrative body has ever been denied. (Id.) Nor has any
`
`court or administrative body imposed sanctions or contempt citations against Mr.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`PHV Admission
`
`
`Davis. (Id.) Mr. Davis has read, fully understands, 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 C.F.R. (Id. ¶ 4.) Mr. Davis acknowledges and agrees 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). (Id.)
`
`Petitioner’s lead counsel in this proceeding, Jonathan M. Strang, is a
`
`registered practitioner (Reg. No. 61,724). Moreover, as set forth below (and in his
`
`accompanying declaration), Mr. Davis is both an experienced and technically-
`
`trained litigation attorney with an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Davis received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`and Economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. (Id. ¶ 5.) Mr.
`
`Davis earned a law degree from Columbia Law School in 2013. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Davis is currently a member of Latham & Watkins’ intellectual property
`
`group, with a focus on patent litigation. (Id. ¶ 6.) Mr. Davis has practiced in this
`
`group for approximately six years. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Davis also has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in this proceeding. Mr. Davis has been actively involved in the related district court
`
`litigation between the Petitioner and Patent Owner, WiTricity Corp. v. Momentum
`
`Dynamics Corp., C.A. No. 20-1671-MSG (Id. at ¶ 7.) U.S. Patent No. 8,304,935
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`PHV Admission
`
`
`(“’935 patent”), which is at issue in this proceeding, was one of the patents asserted
`
`by the Patent Owner in the district court litigation. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Mr. Davis has been
`
`actively involved in all aspects of the litigation, including Petitioner’s factual
`
`investigation and development of its claim construction, invalidity, and non-
`
`infringement positions regarding the claims of the ’935 patent at issue here. (Id.)
`
`Mr. Davis has been actively involved in analyzing and assisting with the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review submitted in this proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
`
`He is concurrently applying to appear pro hac vice in the following
`
`proceedings before the USPTO: Case Nos. IPR2021-01116, IPR2021-01127,
`
`IPR2021-01165, and IPR2021-01167. (Id. at ¶ 10.) He has applied to appear pro
`
`hac vice in the following proceedings before the USPTO: LG Display Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Solas OLED Ltd., No. IPR2020-00177 and Abbott Vascular, Inc. et al v. FlexStent,
`
`LLC, No. IPR2019-00882. (Id.)
`
`In view of Mr. Davis’s extensive knowledge of the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this proceeding and the related
`
`district court litigation, Petitioner’s have a substantial need for Mr. Davis’s pro hac
`
`vice admission and his involvement in the continued prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`In addition, admission of Mr. Davis pro hac vice will enable Petitioner’s to avoid
`
`unnecessary expense and duplication of work between this proceeding and the
`
`district court litigation. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,661 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Office’s
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`PHV Admission
`
`
`comment on final rule discussing concerns about efficiency and costs where an entity
`
`has already engaged counsel for parallel district court litigation).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s respectfully requests that Mr. Davis be
`
`admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`
` Latham & Watkins LLP
`
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
` Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
` Telephone: 202.637.2200
` Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`PHV Admission
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 28th day of April, 2022,
`
`a copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Blake R. Davis Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) was served by electronic
`
`mail on Patent Owner’s lead and backup counsel at the following email addresses:
`
`Joshua Griswold (Reg. No. 46,310)
`Dan Smith (Reg. No. 71,278)
`Kim Leung (Reg. No. 64,399)
`Kenneth Hoover (Reg. No. 68,116)
`W. Karl Renner (Reg. No. 41,265)
`Marc M. Wefers (Reg. No. 56,842)
`Andrew Kopsidas (Reg. No. 42,759)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`320 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 214.747.5070
`Fax: 877.769.7945
`Email: IPR25236-0267IP1@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`Email: griswold@fr.com
`Email: dsmith@fr.com
`Email: leung@fr.com
`Email: hoover@fr.com,
`Email: axf-ptab@fr.com
`Email: wefers@fr.com
`Email: kopsidas@fr.com
`
`Misha Hill (Reg. No. 59,737)
`57 Water Street
`Watertown, MA 02472
`Telephone: 617.926.2700
`Fax: 617.926.2745
`Email: misha.hill@witricity.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for
`PHV Admission
`
`IPR2021-01166 (USP 8,304,935)
`
`
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg. No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (pro hac vice to be requested)
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.362.6666
`Fax: 415.236.6300
`Email: abrausa@durietangri.com
`Email: ddurie@durietangri.com
`Email: SERVICE-WITRICITY@durietangri.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Momentum Dynamics Corporation
`
`
`
`
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
