`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SEYMOUR LEVINE,
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2015-01341
`Patent No. RE39,618
`
`PETITIONER THE BOEING COMPANY’S
`MOTION FOR EDWARD (TED) G. DANE TO
`APPEAR PRO HAC VICE UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner The Boeing Company (“Boeing”)
`
`moves the Board to authorize Edward (Ted) G. Dane to appear pro hac vice in the
`
`above-captioned inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE39,618. Boeing seeks Mr.
`
`Dane’s assistance because of his experience and knowledge regarding the substantive
`
`and technical issues involved in this proceeding. This motion is authorized by the
`
`Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (Paper 5) and provides the information required by the Board’s
`
`“Order, Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission, 37 C.F.R. §42.10” in Case
`
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Pro Hac Order”).
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Pro Hac Order, Part 2(a), Boeing states that good cause exists
`
`for Mr. Dane to appear pro hac vice in connection with the above-captioned inter
`
`partes review because: (1) Mr. Dane is a partner at the law firm Munger, Tolles &
`
`Olson LLP and a member in good standing of The State Bar of California; (2) Mr.
`
`Dane is an experienced patent litigator with over twenty years of litigation experience,
`
`and has litigated numerous patent cases in federal district courts and before the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; (4) Mr. Dane is especially familiar
`
`with the subject matter at issue because he represents the Petitioner as lead counsel in
`
`the related district court proceeding, Seymour Levine v. The Boeing Company, Case
`
`No. 2:14-cv-1991-RSL (W.D. Wash.), concerning U.S. Patent No. RE39,618; (5)
`
`Petitioner has a need to have its counsel in the co-pending litigation involved in this
`
`proceeding; (6) Mr. Dane has previously been granted pro hac vice status in Alien
`
`Technology Corporation v. Intermec., Inc. et al., Appeal 2012-005401, Reexamination
`
`Control No. 95/001,265 (B.P.A.I. 2012); and (7) Ryan J. McBrayer, lead counsel for
`
`Petitioner with respect to the inter partes review, is a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and
`
`03007-0014/92044667.1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`a registered practitioner before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(Reg. No. 54,299).
`
`
`
`The information required by the Pro Hac Order, Part 2(b)(i)-(viii), can be
`
`found in the accompanying Declaration of Edward G. Dane in support of this Motion.
`
`
`
`The undersigned attorney welcomes a telephone call should the Office have
`
`any requests or questions.
`
`DATED: January 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Ryan J. McBrayer/
`Ryan J. McBrayer (Reg. No. 54,299)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner,
`The Boeing Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`03007-0014/92044667.1
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned PETITIONER
`
`IPR2015-01341
`Patent RE39,618
`
`THE BOEING COMPANY’S MOTION AND DECLARATION FOR PRO
`
`HAC VICE ADMISSION, was served in its entirety on January 12, 2016, upon the
`
`following parties via email, pursuant to the parties’ agreement concerning service:
`
`Bruce R. Zisser
`Amar L. Thakur
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`brucezisser@quinnemanuel.com
`amarthakur@quinnemanuel.com
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Seymour Levine
`
`
`
` /Ryan J. McBrayer/
`Ryan J. McBrayer (Reg. No. 54,299)
`Perkins Coie LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2016
`
`
`
`03007-0014/92044667.1
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
