`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 5, 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
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions
`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 27, 2022, Patent Owner filed Renewed Motions
`(“Motions”) requesting pro hac vice admission of Steven M. Coyle (Paper
`12) and Nicholas A. Geiger (Paper 13). Patent Owner submitted Revised
`Declarations (“Declarations”) of Mr. Coyle (Ex. 2029) and Mr. Geiger
`(Ex. 2030) in support of the Motions. Petitioner has not opposed the
`Motions.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`moving party to provide 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 the proceeding. See Paper 3, 2–3
`(citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639,
`Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger have sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`proceeding, that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger have demonstrated sufficient
`familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding, that Mr. Coyle and Mr.
`Geiger meet all other requirements for admission pro hac vice, and that
`Patent Owner’s desire to include counsel from the corresponding district
`court proceeding is credible. See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 1–10; Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 1–10.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01006
`Patent 9,665,705 B2
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Steven M. Coyle and Nicholas A. Geiger are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding,
`but that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger are authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger comply with
`the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21,
`2019))1 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. Coyle and Mr. Geiger are subject to
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`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
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`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
