`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`Entered: October 2, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MEDIVIS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARAD CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Erik Paul Belt
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
`
`Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for pro hac vice admission
`of Erik Paul Belt in each of the above-listed proceedings (“Motions”).
`Paper 18. 2 Petitioner also filed a supporting declaration from Mr. Belt.
`Paper 18, 4–6. 3 Patent Owner did not oppose the Motions.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires 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 this proceeding. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (representative “Order –
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”).
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) have been met, and that there is good
`cause to admit Mr. Belt pro hac vice.
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Erik Paul
`Belt is granted and Mr. Belt is authorized to represent Petitioner only as
`back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2023-00042 with the understanding that the other
`proceeding includes papers having substantially the same content.
`3 Petitioner filed the declarations as part of the Motions. We excuse this
`mistake on this occasion, but remind the parties that affidavits and
`declarations must be filed as exhibits. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a) (“Evidence
`consists of affidavits, transcripts of depositions, documents, and things. All
`evidence must be filed in the form of an exhibit.”).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Petitioner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Belt shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Consolidated Office Patent
`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;5 and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Belt is subject to the USPTO’s Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to the
`USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).6
`
`
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`5 The Declaration incorrectly states that “I have read and will comply with
`the Office’s Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice
`for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.” Paper 18, 5. The Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials are set forth
`in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations.
`6 In the Declaration, Mr. Belt indicates he will comply with 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 10.20 et seq., as opposed to attesting that he shall be subject to the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq. See Paper 18, 5. We excuse this mistake on this occasion, noting that
`Mr. Belt will be 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00042 (Patent 11,004,271 B2)
`IPR2023-00045 (Patent 10,945,807 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Kia L. Freeman
`John Curran
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`kfreeman@mccarter.com
`jcurran@mccarter.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph Harmer
`Jed H. Hansen
`THORPE NORTH & WESTERN LLP
`joseph.harmer@tnw.com
`hansen@tnw.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`