`571-272-7822
`
`Paper: 10
`Date: November 3, 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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-01045 and IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01093 and IPR2022-01094 (Patent 8,620,039 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, BARRY L. GROSSMAN,
`FREDERICK C. LANEY, and AMBER L. HAGY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in each case. We exercise
`our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties,
`however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`2 This is not an expanded panel of the Board. It is a listing of all the Judges
`on the panels of the above-listed proceedings.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01045 and IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01093 and IPR2022-01094 (Patent 8,620,039 B2)
`
`
`On October 26, 2022, Patent Owner filed motions for pro hac vice
`admission of Steven M. Coyle (Paper 11) and Nicholas A. Geiger (Paper 12)
`in each of the above-identified proceedings (collectively, “Motions”). 3
`Patent Owner also filed declarations from Mr. Coyle (Ex. 2001) and Mr.
`Geiger (Ex. 2002) in support of the Motions (collectively, “Declarations”). 4
`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 5, 2 (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 these
`proceedings, that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger have demonstrated sufficient
`litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter of these
`proceedings, and that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger meet all other requirements
`for admission pro hac vice, and that Patent Owner’s desire to include
`
`
`3 We refer to Papers filed in IPR2022-01045. Patent Owner filed similar
`Motions in each of IPR2022-01089, IPR2022-01093, and IPR2022-01094.
`4 We refer to Exhibits filed in IPR2022-01045. Patent Owner filed similar
`Declarations in each of IPR2022-01089, IPR2022-01093, and IPR2022-
`01094.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01045 and IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01093 and IPR2022-01094 (Patent 8,620,039 B2)
`
`counsel from the corresponding district court proceeding is credible.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`admission of Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger.
`
`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 is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the above-identified
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger are authorized
`to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only in the above-identified
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Coyle and Mr. Geiger are to comply
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5
`(November 2019), 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 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.
`
`
`
`5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01045 and IPR2022-01089 (Patent 9,269,208 B2)
`IPR2022-01093 and IPR2022-01094 (Patent 8,620,039 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Dion Bregman
`Andrew Devkar
`James Kritsas
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`james.kritsas@morganlewis.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Andrew Ryan
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`ryan@cantorcolburn.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`