`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: August 1, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`THORLEY INDUSTRIES LLC, D/B/A 4MOMS,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KOLCRAFT ENTERPRISES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00352
`Patent 9,027,180 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Renewed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00352
`Patent 9,027,180 B2
`I. Discussion
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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, we also require a statement
`of facts showing there is good cause for us 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 Case IPR2013-00639, entered October 15, 20131). The
`affidavit or declaration must attest that, among other things, “[n]o
`application for admission to practice before any court or administrative body
`ever denied.” Id. at 3. Furthermore, “[w]here the affiant or declarant is
`unable to provide any of the information requested above in part 2(b) or
`make any of the required statements or representations under oath, the
`individual should provide a full explanation of the circumstances as part of
`the affidavit or declaration.” Id. at 4.
`On April 5, 2016, we denied without prejudice Patent Owner’s initial
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. (Paper 10)
`based on an inconsistency between the Motion and Mr. Niro’s supporting
`declaration. See Paper 13. In particular, the Motion indicated Mr. Niro had
`
`
`1 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-
`patent-decisions/decisions-and-opinions/representative-orders.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00352
`Patent 9,027,180 B2
`been denied pro hac vice admission in an inter partes reexamination
`proceeding before the Board, but Mr. Niro’s declaration stated Mr. Niro had
`never been denied admission to practice before an administrative body. See
`id. at 3.
`On July 14, 2016, Patent Owner filed a renewed Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission of Mr. Niro accompanied by a declaration of Mr. Niro in
`support of the Motion. Paper 16; Ex. 2001. Petitioner has not opposed the
`renewed Motion. In his declaration, Mr. Niro explains the circumstances of
`the Board’s denial of his request to appear pro hac vice in Inter Partes
`Reexamination Control No. 95/000,514, as required by our representative
`Order. Ex. 2001 ¶ 3; see also Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, 4. We find
`Mr. Niro’s declaration (Ex. 2001) accompanying the renewed Motion
`conforms to the requirements for evidentiary support for a motion for pro
`hac vice admission. See Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, 3–4.
`On this record, we determine that Mr. Niro has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner, and that there is a need
`for Patent Owner to have its counsel who represents it in a related district
`court case involved in this proceeding. Mot. 4–8; Ex. 2001 ¶ 8.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established that there is good cause for the
`pro hac vice admission of Mr. Niro in this proceeding.
`
`II. Order
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s renewed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Raymond P. Niro, Jr. is granted, and Mr. Niro is
`authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in IPR2016-00352
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00352
`Patent 9,027,180 B2
`only;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this inter partes review proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Niro 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. Niro is 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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Mark G. Knedeisen
`mark.knedeisen@klgates.com
`
`Jason A. Engel
`jason.engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`
`Laurén S. Murray
`lauren.murray@klgates.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brian P. Lynch
`yttriumnitrate@gmail.com
`
`Raymond P. Niro, Jr.
`rniro@niro-mcandrews.com
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
