`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 37
`
`Date Entered: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC., MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL
`CO., LTD., MSI COMPUTER CORP., GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
`LTD., AND G.B.T., INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases: IPR2015-01079; -01081; -01094; -01140; -01141;
` -01191; -01197
`Patents: 6,373,498; 5,987,604; 6,401,202; 6,519,659; 6,633,976;
`6,892,304; 6,487,656
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`CHRISTOPHER H. ST. PETER
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2015-01079; -01081; -01094; -01140; -01141; -01191;
` -01197
`Patents: 6,373,498; 5,987,604; 6,401,202; 6,519,659; 6,633,976; 6,892,304;
`6,487,656
`
`
`Kinglite Holding, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) moves for the pro hac vice
`admission of attorney Christopher H. St. Peter in accordance with 37 CFR 42.10 in
`each of the identified proceedings. American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star
`International Co., Ltd., MSI Computer Corp., Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd., and
`G.B.T., Inc. (collectively, “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).
`Christopher H. St. Peter provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`is a membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State
`i.
`(Illinois);
`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;
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2015-01079; -01081; -01094; -01140; -01141; -01191;
` -01197
`Patents: 6,373,498; 5,987,604; 6,401,202; 6,519,659; 6,633,976; 6,892,304;
`6,487,656
`
`
`iv.
`
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any
`court or administrative body;
`v. 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 not appeared in any other proceedings before the Office in the last
`three (3) years; and
`has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in each proceeding and
`has been co-counsel in litigation involving some or all of the subject
`patents.
`Counsel for Patent Owner in each proceeding, who is registered to practice
`at the USPTO, has provided a statement of facts that Mr. St. Peter is an
`experienced litigator, has reviewed the patents at issue and the prior art, and is
`familiar with the subject matter of the proceedings. Thus, Patent Owner has shown
`good cause why Christopher H. St. Peter should be recognized pro hac vice for
`purposes of this proceeding. Mr. St. Peter has provided the requisite affidavit or
`declaration. Therefore, Christopher H. St. Peter has complied with the
`requirements for admission pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`vii.
`
`viii.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases: IPR2015-01079; -01081; -01094; -01140; -01141; -01191;
` -01197
`Patents: 6,373,498; 5,987,604; 6,401,202; 6,519,659; 6,633,976; 6,892,304;
`6,487,656
`
`
`II. Order
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Christopher
`H. St. Peter is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher H. St. Peter may not act as lead
`counsel in the proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as lead
`counsel throughout the proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher H. St. Peter 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 Christopher H. St. Peter 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.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER: (via electronic transmission)
`vivek ganti
`Gregory Ourada
`vg@hkw-law.com
`go@hkw-law.com
`
`PATENT OWNER: (via electronic transmission)
`Christopher Frerking
`chris@ntknet.com
`
`
`
`4