`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 20
`Date: September 16, 2014
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP,
`INC., and PNC BANK, N.A.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
` INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC,
`Patent Owner. 1
`
`____________
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`
`
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Decision on Motions
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The parties are not authorized to use this form of caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner has filed motions for pro hac vice admission of Michael
`Summersgill and Nina S. Tallon in each of these proceedings. Patent Owner
`did not oppose. The motions are granted.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice, 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 in these proceedings.
`In its motions, Petitioner states that there is good cause for the Board
`to recognize Mr. Summersgill and Ms. Tallon pro hac vice because they are
`experienced litigating attorneys familiar with subject matter of the
`proceedings and a members in good standing of the Massachusetts bar. Mr.
`Summersgill and Ms. Tallon have made a declarations attesting to, and
`explaining, these facts. The declarations comply with the requirements set
`forth in the Notice.
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated that Mr.
`Summersgill and Ms.Tallon have sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Petitioner in these proceedings. Moreover, the
`Board recognizes that there is a need for Petitioner to have them be involved
`in these proceedings. Accordingly, Petitioner has established that there is
`good cause for admitting Mr. Summersgill and Ms. Tallon.
`It is therefore
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for admission of Michael
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`Summersgill and Nina S. Tallon pro hac vice are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summersgill and Ms. Tallon are 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
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Summersgill and Ms. Tallon are
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case CBM2014-00028
`Case CBM2014-00030
`Case CBM2014-00033
`
`PETITIONERS:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`Monica Grewal
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`monica.grewal@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Henry A. Petri, Jr.
`James P. Murphy
`NOVAK DRUCE CONNOLLY BOVE + QUIGG LLP
`henry.petri@novakdruce.com
`james.murphy@novakdruce.com
`
`
`Herbert D. Hart III
`Jonathan R. Sick
`Eligio C. Pimentel
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`hhart@mcandrews-ip.com
`jsick@mcandrews-ip.com
`epimentel@mcandrews-ip.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
