`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`Entered: August 9, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00287 (Patent 6,784,552)
`Case IPR2016-00288 (Patent 6,784,552)
`Case IPR2016-00289 (Patent 5,965,924)
`Case IPR2016-00290 (Patent 5,965,924)1
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, BRIAN J. McNAMARA, and
`MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Without Prejudice Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`of Louis W. Tompros
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order will be entered in each case. The parties are not authorized to
`use this caption style.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00287 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00288 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00289 (Patent 5,965,924)
`IPR2016-00290 (Patent 5,965,924)
`
`
`Intel Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion requesting pro hac vice
`admission of Louis W. Tompros in these proceedings, accompanied by a
`Declaration from Mr. Tompros in support of the motion. See Paper 9;
`Ex. 1027.2 DSS Technology Management, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) has not
`filed an Opposition to the Motion. For the reasons discussed below,
`Petitioner’s Motion is denied without prejudice.
`
`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 these proceedings. See “Order – Authorizing
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” (Paper 7) in IPR2013-00639, entered
`October 15, 2013 (“’639 Order”).
`The Motion and supporting declaration do not establish good cause
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Tompros and do not comply with the
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to Papers and Exhibits filed in
`IPR2016-00287.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00287 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00288 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00289 (Patent 5,965,924)
`IPR2016-00290 (Patent 5,965,924)
`
`requirements outlined in the ’639 Order. For instance, the supporting
`declaration lacks the averments required by the ’639 Order, part 2(b),
`paragraphs ii and iv. Petitioner’s Motion cannot be granted at this time
`because the declaration of Louis W. Tompros does not indicate whether he
`was ever suspended or disbarred from practice before any court or
`administrative body, or whether a sanction or contempt citation was ever
`imposed on him by any court or administrative body.
`
`II. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Louis W. Tompros is denied without prejudice; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to perfect its
`motion and Mr. Tompros’s Declaration to comply with the requirements set
`forth in the ’639 Order.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00287 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00288 (Patent 6,784,552)
`IPR2016-00289 (Patent 5,965,924)
`IPR2016-00290 (Patent 5,965,924)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Grant K. Rowan
`Yung-Hoon Ha
`WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR, LLP
`Grant.Rowan@wilmerhale.com
`Yung-Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Andriy Lytvyn
`Anton J. Hopen
`Nicholas Pfeifer
`SMITH & HOPEN, P.A.
`andriy.lytvyn@smithhopen.com
`anton.hopen@smithhopen.com
`nicholas.pfeifer@smithhopen.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
