`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 19
`Entered: November 5, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`UNDER ARMOUR, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADIDAS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00697 (Patent 6,810,019 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00698 (Patent 8,092,345 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00700 (Patent 8,579,767 B2)
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jonathan D. Olinger
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00697 (Patent 6,810,019 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00698 (Patent 8,092,345 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00700 (Patent 8,579,767 B2)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Jonathan D.
`
`Olinger. Paper 16 in each of these proceedings.1 Patent Owner also filed a
`
`declaration in support. Paper 16 (following the motion).2 Patent Owner states that
`
`the motions are unopposed. Paper 16.
`
`Having reviewed the motions and the accompanying declaration, we
`
`conclude that Mr. Olinger has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent Owner in
`
`this proceeding and that Patent Owner has shown good cause for Mr. Olinger’s pro
`
`hac vice admission. Mr. Olinger will be permitted to appear pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Jonathan D. Olinger are granted, and Mr. Olinger is authorized to represent Patent
`
`Owner only as back-up counsel in these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner as lead counsel in these proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Olinger 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. Olinger 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.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner filed substantially identical motions in all three cases. All
`references will be to papers in IPR2015-00697.
`2 Paper 16 has no printed page numbers.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00697 (Patent 6,810,019 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00698 (Patent 8,092,345 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00700 (Patent 8,579,767 B2)
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson
`Anish R. Desai
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Wab P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
` 3