`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 13
`Entered: September 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS INC., KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS
`HOLDING CORP., KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM IVHS TECHNOLOGIES
`HOLDING CORP., KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM U.S. CORP., and
`KAPSCH TRAFFICCOM HOLDING CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00808 (Patent 6,229,443 B1)
`Case IPR2015-00814 (Patent 6,690,264 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00818 (Patent 8,237,568 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00819 (Patent 8,325,044 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, GLENN J. PERRY, and
`TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert H. Sloss
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Decision addresses an issue pertaining to all four cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent
`papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00808, IPR2015-00814
`IPR2015-00818, IPR2015-00819
`
`
`Patent Owner filed a Motion requesting pro hac vice admission of
`Robert H. Sloss in each of the instant proceedings, and provided a
`Declaration from Mr. Sloss in support of each request. See IPR2015-00808,
`Paper 7; IPR2015-00814, Paper 7; IPR2015-00818, Paper 7;
`IPR2015-00819, Paper 9.2 Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Noel C. Gillespie,
`is a registered practitioner. Petitioner did not file an opposition to any of the
`Motions. Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and Declarations, we
`conclude that Patent Owner has established good cause for Mr. Sloss’s pro
`hac vice admission. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c); Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Robert H. Sloss are granted, and Mr. Sloss is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the instant proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in the instant proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sloss 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. Sloss is subject to the USPTO Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901 and the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`2 Patent Owner filed each Motion and Declaration together as a single
`document. The parties are reminded that declarations must be filed as
`exhibits, rather than papers, and numbered sequentially in the appropriate
`range. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00808, IPR2015-00814
`IPR2015-00818, IPR2015-00819
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Gregg F. LoCascio
`Nathan S. Mammen
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`gregg.locascio@kirkland.com
`nathan.mammen@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Noel C. Gillespie
`Victor M. Felix
`PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
`gail.poulos@procopio.com
`victor.felix@procopio.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3