` IPR2015-01592, Paper No. 11
`Entered: February 24, 2016
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HYDRITE CHEMICAL CO.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLENIS TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01586
`Patent 8,841,469 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01592
`Patent 8,962,059 B11
`____________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, DONNA M. PRAISS, and
`JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Christopher J. Fahy
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This order addresses identical motions filed in both cases; therefore, we
`issue a single order to be entered in each case. The parties may not use this
`style heading in their papers without prior authorization.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`
`For each of these proceedings, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro
`hac vice admission of Mr. Christopher J. Fahy (Paper 9, “Mot.”),2 with a
`supporting declaration of Mr. Fahy attached (“Fahy Decl.”). Patent Owner
`did not oppose the motion within the one-week period permitted for filing an
`opposition. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s motion is granted.
`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 and to any other conditions as the Board may
`impose.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). 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.” Id. 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. See Unified
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3
`(PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7).
`Petitioner comes forward with evidence that Mr. Fahy is an
`experienced intellectual property litigation attorney with an established
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in these inter partes reviews.
`Mot. 2–3; Fahy Decl. ¶¶ 8–9. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “Mr. Fahy
`has worked extensively with lead and back-up counsel in preparing the
`Petition.” Mot. 3; Fahy Decl. ¶ 9. Mr. Fahy attests that he is a member in
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations to the record herein are in reference to
`IPR2015-01586. The same papers may be found in IPR2015-01592.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`good standing of the state bar of Illinois, and has never been suspended or
`disbarred from practice, denied application to practice, sanctioned, or cited
`for contempt by any court or administrative body. Fahy Decl. ¶¶ 1–4.
`Based on the facts set forth in support of the motion and Mr. Fahy’s
`supporting declaration, we conclude that Petitioner has established good
`cause for Mr. Fahy’s pro hac vice admission. Mr. Fahy shall be subject to
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) and the
`Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 11.101
`et seq. Furthermore, Mr. Fahy is directed to comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), and the Board’s
`Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the C.F.R.
`Mr. Fahy will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in the instant proceedings
`as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Christopher J. Fahy is granted, and Mr. Fahy is authorized to represent
`Petitioner in the instant proceedings as back-up counsel only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fahy is to comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Fahy is subject to the USPTO Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01586 (Patent 8,841,469 B2)
`IPR2015-01592 (Patent 8,962,059 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard Roche
`Joel Austin
`Christopher J. Fahy
`QUARLES & BRADY LLP
`richard.roche@quarles.com
`joel.austin@quarles.com
`christopher.fahy@quarles.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph Lucci
`David N. Farsiou
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`jlucci@bakerlaw.com
`dfarsiou@bakerlaw.com