`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 5, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BATTERY-BIZ, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Charles Quinn
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Patent Owner, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., filed a revised
`motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Charles Quinn. Paper 10
`(“Mot.”).2 Patent Owner also filed a declaration from Mr. Quinn in support
`
`
`1 We use this caption in this paper to indicate that this Order applies to, and
`is entered in, both cases. The parties are not authorized to use this caption.
`2 Papers filed thus far in IPR2016-00630 and IPR2016-00632 have identical
`paper numbers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`of its motion. Mot., Ex. A.3 Patent Owner states that the parties have
`conferred and Petitioner, Battery-Biz, Inc., does not oppose Patent Owner’s
`revised motion. Mot. 2.
`Having reviewed the Motion and the declaration of Mr. Quinn, we
`conclude that Mr. Quinn has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent
`Owner in this proceeding and that Patent Owner has shown good cause for
`Mr. Quinn’s pro hac vice admission. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel
`Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (setting forth the
`requirements for pro hac vice admission) (Paper 7). Mr. Quinn will be
`permitted to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding as back-up counsel only.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`ORDER
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Charles Quinn is granted, and Mr. Quinn is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Quinn is to comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as
`set forth in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`
`
`3 In the future, all exhibits in these proceedings must be filed as numbered
`exhibits in the PTAB’s Patent Review Process System (“PRPS”).
`Information regarding the use of PRPS, including contact information for
`questions, may be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/patent-review-processing-system-
`prps-0.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Quinn is subject to the USPTO’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO’s Rules
`of Professional Conduct set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–11.901.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`David A. Dillard
`Sami I. Schilly
`LEWIS ROCA ROTHBERGER CHRISTIE, LLP
`ddillard@lrrc.com
`sschilly@lrrc.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Harris A. Wolin
`GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
`hwolin@grahamcurtin.com
`
`
`3