`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Daniel F. Olejko
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner Securus Technologies, Inc. filed a motion pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for Daniel F. Olejko to appear pro hac vice on its
`
`behalf before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in this proceeding. See
`
`Paper 11. Patent Owner did not indicate whether its motion was opposed,
`
`but after thirty (30) days, Petitioner did not file an opposition.
`
`Pursuant to 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. A motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission must contain a statement of facts showing there is good
`
`cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding and be
`
`accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`
`appear. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639,
`
`slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the
`
`requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`
`In his declaration, Mr. Olejko states he has familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding, as he is representing Patent Owner in
`
`several cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which
`
`are all appeals from final written decisions in inter partes review
`
`proceedings before the Board. Ex. 2003, 2. In addition, Mr. Olejko’s
`
`declaration complies with the other requirements for pro hac vice admission.
`
`Id. at 1–2; see Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`
`Having reviewed Mr. Olejko’s declaration, we determine that
`
`Mr. Olejko has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`
`proceeding. Additionally, we determine Patent Owner has shown good
`
`cause for Mr. Olejko’s pro hac vice admission in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420 B1
`
`
`ORDER
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Daniel F. Olejko is granted, and Mr. Olejko is authorized to represent Patent
`
`Owner r only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Olejko 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. Olejko is subject to the USPTO’s
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules
`
`of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01220
`Patent 9,007,420 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Specht
`Mspecht-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Joseph Mutschelknaus
`Jmutsche-ptab@skgf.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin Kimble
`Jkimble-ipr@bcpc-law.com
`
`Terry Saad
`tsaad@bcpc-law.com
`
`Nicholas Kliewer
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.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
