`571.272.7822 Entered: November 27, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FUJIFILM CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00876 (Patent 6,462,905 B1)
`Case IPR2018-00877 (Patent 6,462,905 B1)1
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice — Katherine M. Burke
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this caption. The parties will continue
`to use the individual case captions.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00876 (Patent 6,462,905)
`IPR2018-00877 (Patent 6,462,905)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On November 10, 2018, Fuji Corporation (“Patent Owner”) moved
`for admission pro hac vice of Katherine M. Burke in IPR2018-00876 (“’876
`IPR”) and IPR2018-00877 (“’877 IPR”). Papers 16 (’876 IPR); 12 (’877
`IPR); “Motions.” Patent Owner filed a supporting declaration of Ms. Burke
`as part of the Motions. Sony Corporation (“Petitioner”) has not timely
`opposed the Motions.
`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. In authorizing
`motions for pro hac vice, we require the moving party to provide 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 the
`proceeding.2
`Upon review of the Motions and supporting declarations, we
`determine that Patent Owner has demonstrated that Katharine Burke has
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`proceeding. We also recognize the need to have her involved as backup
`counsel. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for
`admitting Katharine Burke pro hac vice.
`
`
`
`
`2 The electronic signature on the declaration does not comply with our
`formatting requirements. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(4); 42.11(b) (both citing
`37 C.F.R. §§ 11.18(a), 1.4(d)(2)). Petitioner does not object and future
`filings must comply with our rules.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00876 (Patent 6,462,905)
`IPR2018-00877 (Patent 6,462,905)
`
`
`ORDER
`
`It is accordingly
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Katharine Burke are granted, and Ms. Burke is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these proceedings only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for both proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Katharine Burke 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and 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.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be filed in each
`of the ’876 and ’877 IPRs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00876 (Patent 6,462,905)
`IPR2018-00877 (Patent 6,462,905)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Richard F. Giunta
`Michael N. Rader
`Randy J. Pritzker
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`rgiunta-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`mrader-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`rpritzker-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Eliot D. Williams
`Robert C. Scheinfeld
`Robert L. Maier
`Jennifer Tempesta
`Margaret M. Welsh
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`robert.maier@bakerbotts.com
`jennifer.tempesta@bakerbotts.com
`margaret.welsh@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
