`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: March 11, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`and QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Cases: IPR2015-01277 (Patent 8,309,943)
`IPR2015-01279 (Patent 7,786,455)
`IPR2015-01300, -01303, -01377 (Patent 7,435,982)
`IPR2015-01362 (Patent 8,969,841)
`IPR2015-01368 (Patent 8,525,138)
`IPR2015-01375 (Patent 9,048,000)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Kevin S. Prussia and James M. Dowd
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to each of the listed cases. We exercise our discretion
`to issue one Order to be docketed in each case. The parties, however, are
`not authorized to use this caption for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01277, IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303,
`IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375, and IPR2015-01377
`
`
`Petitioner moves for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Kevin S. Prussia
`(see, e.g., IPR2015-01277, Paper 23)2 and Mr. James M. Dowd (see, e.g.,
`IPR2015-01277, Paper 24). Petitioner provides affidavits in support of its
`motions. See, e.g., IPR2015-01277, Exs. 1017, 1018. Patent Owner does
`not oppose Petitioner’s motions. See, e.g., IPR2015-01277, Paper 23, 1;
`IPR2015-01277, Paper 24, 1.
`Based on the facts set forth in the motions and the accompanying
`affidavits from Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd, we conclude that Mr. Prussia and
`Mr. Dowd have sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`Petitioner in these cases, that Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd have demonstrated
`the necessary familiarity with the subject matter of these cases, and that
`there is a need for Petitioner to have counsel with experience as litigation
`attorneys in patent matters involved in these cases. Accordingly, Petitioner
`has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Prussia and
`Mr. Dowd. Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd will be permitted to appear pro hac
`vice in these cases as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd are granted, and Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd are
`authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered
`practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd comply with
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`
`
`2 Citations herein will be to IPR2015-01277, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01277, IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303,
`IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375, and IPR2015-01377
`
`Trials, as set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Prussia and Mr. Dowd are subject to
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`Safraz Ishmael
`Jinnie Reed
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`jcapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`jreed@proskauer.com
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
