`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper No. 21
`Date Entered: April 16, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PI-NET INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, KARL D. EASTHOM, WILLIAM V. SAINDON and
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`COLBY B. SPRINGER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`In this proceeding, which concerns U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 (“the subject
`patent”), Pi-Net International, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) moves for the pro hac vice
`admission of attorney Colby B. Springer in accordance with 37 CFR § 42.10
`Motion, Paper 19. SAP America, Inc. (“Petitioner”) 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).
`Coly B. Springer provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`i.
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`the District of Columbia;
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from practice
`before any court or administrative body;
`has never been denied any application for admission to practice before
`any court or administrative body ever denied;
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`v.
`
`vii.
`
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by
`any court or administrative body;
`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);
`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.
`Counsel for Patent Owner, Bryan Boyle, who is a registered to practice at
`the USPTO has provided a statement of facts stating that the CEO of the Patent
`Owner has worked with Mr. Springer on a number of matters, including the
`technical subject matter of the subject patent and believes that Mr. Springer’s
`technical experience will aid the Patent Owner in this proceeding. With the
`Motion, counsel for Patent Owner has also submitted a declaration from the CEO
`of Patent Owner. Thus, Patent Owner has shown good cause why Colby B.
`Springer should be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding. Mr.
`Springer has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. Therefore, Colby B.
`Springer has complied with the requirements for admission pro hac vice in this
`proceeding.
`II. Order
`In consideration of the above, it is:
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Colby B.
`Springer is GRANTED;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Colby B. Springer may not act as lead counsel
`in the proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`counsel throughout the proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Colby B. Springer 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 Colby B. Springer 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Michael Q. Lee
`Mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Lgordon-PTAB@skgf.vom
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`
`Tam Thanh Pham
`tpham@lrrlaw.com
`
`Lauren May Eaton
`Pi-Net_PTAB@lrrlaw.com
`
`Bryan Boyle
`bboyle@carrferrell.com
`
`Lawrence B. Goodwin
`LawrenceGoodwinPC@gmail.com
`
`Gerald Dodson
`jdodson@carrferrell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5