`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 17
`Entered: January 21, 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.
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01277 (Patent 8,309,943)
`Case IPR2015-01279 (Patent 7,786,455)
`Case IPR2015-01300, -01303, -01377 (Patent 7,435,982)
`Case IPR2015-01362 (Patent 8,969,841)
`Case IPR2015-01368 (Patent 8,525,138)
`Case IPR2015-01375 (Patent 9,048,000)1
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`Jinnie L. Reed
`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
`
`
`Patent Owner moves for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Jinnie L.
`Reed. IPR2015-01277, Paper 17; IPR2015-1279, Paper 17; IPR2015-01300,
`Paper 17; IPR2015-01303, Paper 19; IPR2015-01362, Paper 16; IPR2015-
`01368, Paper 15; IPR2015-01375, Paper 17; IPR2015-01377, Paper 15.
`Patent Owner provides affidavits from Ms. Reed in support of its motions.
`IPR2015-01277, Ex. 2002; IPR2015-1279, Ex. 2002; IPR2015-01300, Ex.
`2002; IPR2015-01303, Ex. 2002; IPR2015-01362, Ex. 2003; IPR2015-
`01368, Ex. 2002; IPR2015-01375, Ex. 2004; IPR2015-01377, Ex. 2202.
`Petitioner has not filed an opposition to Patent Owner’s motions.
`Based on the facts set forth in the motions and the accompanying
`affidavits from Ms. Reed, we conclude that Ms. Reed has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in these cases, that
`Ms. Reed has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with the subject matter
`of these cases, and that there is a need for Patent Owner have counsel with
`experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters involved in these cases.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good cause for Ms. Reed’s pro
`hac vice admission. Ms. Reed 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 Patent Owner’s motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Ms. Jinnie L. Reed are granted, and Ms. Reed is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in these cases;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Reed comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01277, IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303,
`IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375, and IPR2015-01377
`
`in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Reed is 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.
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Donald Steinberg
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`Michael H. Smith
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`jcapraro@proskauer.com
`
`Safraz W. Ishmael
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`
`3