`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`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
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
