`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 29
`Entered: June 8, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`THALES VISONIX, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-01294 (Patent 8,224,024 B2)
`IPR2022-01298 and IPR2022-01301 (Patent 7,301,648 B2)
`IPR2022-01302 and IPR2022-01303 (Patent 6,757,068 B2)
`IPR2022-01304 and IPR2022-01305 (Patent 6,922,632 B2)
`IPR2022-01308 (Patent 7,725,253 B2)1
`
`Before WILLIAM V. SAINDON, HYUN J. JUNG,
`BART A. GERSTENBLITH, JASON W. MELVIN, and
`ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`SAINDON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Gentex’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Adam D. Harber and Melissa B. Collins
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in each of these proceedings.
`We issue one Order to be entered in each proceeding. The parties are not
`permitted to use this style of caption.
`2 This is not an expanded panel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IP2022-01294 (Patent 8,224,024 B2)
`IPR2022-01298 and IPR2022-01301 (Patent 7,301,648 B2)
`IPR2022-01302 and IPR2022-01303 (Patent 6,757,068 B2)
`IPR2022-01304 and IPR2022-01305 (Patent 6,922,632 B2)
`IPR2022-01308 (Patent 7,725,253 B2)
`
`
`On April 21, 2023, Patent Owner’s licensee and real party-in-interest
`Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”) filed Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Adam D. Harber and Melissa B. Collins. Papers 19, 20. 3 Gentex submitted
`Declarations from Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins supporting the Motions.
`Exs. 2008, 2009. Gentex indicates that the Motions are unopposed. See
`Papers 19, 20.
`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 Unified Patents,
`Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013)
`(setting forth the requirements for admission pro hac vice).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins have sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Gentex in these proceedings,
`that Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins have demonstrated sufficient litigation
`experience and familiarity with the subject matter of these proceedings, and
`that Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins meet all other requirements for admission
`pro hac vice. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 2–11; Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 2–11. Accordingly,
`
`
`3 For expediency, we cite to papers in IPR2022-01294. Similar papers were
`filed in each of IPR2022-01298, IPR2022-01301, IPR2022-01302, IPR2022-
`01303, IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, and IPR2022-01308.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IP2022-01294 (Patent 8,224,024 B2)
`IPR2022-01298 and IPR2022-01301 (Patent 7,301,648 B2)
`IPR2022-01302 and IPR2022-01303 (Patent 6,757,068 B2)
`IPR2022-01304 and IPR2022-01305 (Patent 6,922,632 B2)
`IPR2022-01308 (Patent 7,725,253 B2)
`
`Gentex has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Harber
`and Ms. Collins. Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins will be permitted to appear
`pro hac vice as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Gentex’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Adam D. Harber and Melissa B. Collins are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins are
`authorized to act only as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins shall comply
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide4
`(84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 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. Harber and Ms. Collins 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–
`11.901. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`5 Mr. Harber and Ms. Collins state that they “will be subject to the USPTO
`Code of Professional Responsibility,” rather than the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct. Ex. 2008 ¶ 8; Ex. 2009 ¶ 8. We deem this to be
`harmless error.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IP2022-01294 (Patent 8,224,024 B2)
`IPR2022-01298 and IPR2022-01301 (Patent 7,301,648 B2)
`IPR2022-01302 and IPR2022-01303 (Patent 6,757,068 B2)
`IPR2022-01304 and IPR2022-01305 (Patent 6,922,632 B2)
`IPR2022-01308 (Patent 7,725,253 B2)
`
`For PETITIONER:
`W. Todd Baker
`Yimeng Dou
`Ellisen Shelton Turner
`Akshay S. Deoras
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`yimeng.dou@kirkland.com
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Meredith Martin Addy
`Robert P. Hart
`Gregory B. Gulliver
`Brandon C. Helms
`ADDYHART P.C.
`meredith@addyhart.com
`robert@addyhart.com
`gbgulliver@addyhart.com
`bhelms@addyhart.com
`
`D. Shayon Ghosh
`Arthur J. Argall III
`Melissa B. Collins
`Adam D. Harber
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`sghosh@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`mcollins@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`