`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 11
` Entered: February 22, 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 IPR2016-00126 (Patent 9,048,000 B2)
`IPR2016-00127 (Patent 8,969,841 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues involving all of the above-identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be entered in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style caption for any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00126 (Patent 9,048,000 B2)
`IPR2016-00127 (Patent 8,969,841 B2)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner filed Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Mr. Safraz W. Ishmael (Paper 82) and Ms. Jinnie L. Reed (Paper 9),
`supported by a Declaration of Mr. Ishmael (Ex. 2101) and a Declaration of
`Ms. Reed (Ex. 2102), in each of the above-identified proceedings. The
`Motions are unopposed. For the reasons provided below, Patent Owner’s
`Motions are granted.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. In authorizing
`motions for pro hac vice, we require the moving party to provide a statement
`of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac
`vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in the
`proceedings.
`In the proceedings at issue, lead counsel for Patent Owner, Mr. Steven
`M. Bauer, is a registered practitioner. Paper 8, 2; Paper 9, 2. Upon review
`of Patent Owner’s Motions and supporting evidence, we determine that
`Patent Owner has demonstrated that Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed have
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in
`these proceedings. We also recognize that there is a need for Patent Owner
`to have Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed be involved in the proceedings at issue.
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2016-00126, as representative, unless otherwise
`noted.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00126 (Patent 9,048,000 B2)
`IPR2016-00127 (Patent 8,969,841 B2)
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established that there is good cause for
`admitting Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed are granted; Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed are
`authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the
`above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for these proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ishmael and Ms. Reed are 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`and he 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.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00126 (Patent 9,048,000 B2)
`IPR2016-00127 (Patent 8,969,841 B2)
`
`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.
`Proskauer Rose LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`JCapraro@proskauer.com
`
`
`
`
`4
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
