`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: September 21, 2022
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY INC.,
`ASSA ABLOY RESIDENTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`AUGUST HOME, INC., HID GLOBAL CORPORATION, and
`ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GROSSMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Without Prejudice Patent Owner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Steven M. Coyle and Nicholas A. Geiger
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`
`On September 6, 2022, Patent Owner filed Motions requesting pro
`hac vice admission of Steven M. Coyle (Paper 7) and Nicholas A. Geiger
`(Paper 8). Patent Owner submitted Declarations of Mr. Coyle (Ex. 2001)
`and Mr. Geiger (Ex. 2002) in support of the Motions. For the reasons
`discussed below, we deny Patent Owner’s Motions without prejudice.
`The Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition entered in this
`proceeding authorizes parties to file motions for admission pro hac vice in
`accordance with the standards set forth in Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel
`Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (representative
`“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”). Paper 3, 2–3.
`The Unified Patents representative Order requires that a motion for
`admission pro hac vice be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the
`individual seeking to appear, attesting to “[a]ll other proceedings before the
`Office for which the individual has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last
`three (3) years.” Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3. Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger
`do not identify in their Declarations the other proceedings for which they
`have applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three years. For example, Mr.
`Coyle should have identified his application for pro hac vice admission in
`IPR2019-01356. See IPR2019-01356, Paper 6.
`The Unified Patents representative Order also requires that the
`individual seeking to appear pro hac vice attests to “[m]embership in good
`standing of the Bar of at least one State or the District of Columbia.”
`Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3. While Mr. Geiger declares that he is “a
`member in good standing of the Bars of the State of Connecticut and the
`District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Virginia,” we note that he
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`does not appear to be a member of the Virginia State Bar as indicated in his
`Declaration. Ex. 2002 ¶ 2.
`Accordingly, the Declarations of Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger are
`deficient because they do not meet the standards set forth in the Unified
`Patents representative Order. Given the deficiency of the Declarations, we
`deny Patent Owner’s Motions without prejudice. Patent Owner is authorized
`to file revised motions for admission pro hac vice of Mr. Coyle and Mr.
`Geiger and revised declarations of Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger that comply
`with the standards set forth in Unified Patents.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Steven M. Coyle and Nicholas A. Geiger are denied without prejudice;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file revised
`motions for admission pro hac vice of Steven M. Coyle and Nicholas A.
`Geiger along with supporting declarations that comply with the standards set
`forth in Unified Patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James Kristas
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`james.kritsas@morganlewis.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew C. Ryan
`ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`
`4
`
`
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
