`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 34
`
`Date Entered: August 1, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`EVAN S. DAY
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) moves for the pro hac vice admission
`
`of attorney Evan S. Day in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10. Paper (“Motion”).
`
`Bradium Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) does not oppose the Motion. We
`
`grant the Motion.
`
`I. Discussion
`
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel pro
`
`hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the
`
`condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. For example, where the
`
`lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered practitioner may be
`
`permitted to appear pro hac vice “upon showing that counsel is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice
`
`admission, the Board also 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, Paper 7, “Order –
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in IPR2013-00639, entered
`
`October 15, 2013).
`
`Evan S. Day provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of California;
`
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body;
`
`iii.
`
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`v. has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37
`
`C.F.R.;
`
`vi. will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii.
`
`has listed all other proceedings before the Office for which he has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii.
`
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Lead counsel for Petitioner, Bing Ai, who is registered to practice at the
`
`USPTO has provided a statement of facts that Evan S. Day is counsel for Petitioner
`
`in related co-pending litigation and is familiar with the technologies and claims of
`
`the patent that is the subject of this proceeding. Thus, Petitioner has shown good
`
`cause why Evan S. Day should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this
`
`proceeding. Evan s. Day has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration.
`
`Therefore, Evan S. Day has complied with the requirements for admission pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. Order
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Evan S. Day
`
`is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Evan S. Day may not act as lead counsel in the
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`
`counsel throughout the proceeding; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01432
`Patent 7,139,794 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Evan S. Day is to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`
`Part 42 of the C.F.R.; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Evan s. Day is to 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., which took effect on
`
`May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Bing Ai Aibin
`Ai-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`Vinay Sathe
`VSathe@perkinscoie.com
`Patrick McKeever
`PMcKeever@perkinscoie.com
`Matthew Bernstein
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Christopher Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`Clifford Ulrich
`culrich@kenyon.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`