`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`_______________
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Daniel F. Olejko
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`
`Patent Owner Securus Technologies, Inc. filed a motion pursuant to
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for Daniel F. Olejko to appear pro hac vice on its
`behalf before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in this proceeding. See
`Paper 23. Patent Owner did not indicate whether its motion was opposed,
`but after seven (7) days, Petitioner did not file an opposition.
`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. A motion for pro
`hac vice admission must contain a statement of facts showing there is good
`cause for us to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding and be
`accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639,
`slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the
`requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`In his declaration, Mr. Olejko states he is familiar with the subject
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 8, 9. Specifically, he states:
`(1) he currently represents Patent Owner in several appeals to the U.S. Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which are all appeals from final written
`decisions in inter partes review proceedings before the Board, and (2) has
`spent consideration time assisting in developing supporting arguments for
`Patent Owner’s responses in the inter partes review proceedings. Id. In
`addition, Mr. Olejko’s declaration complies with the other requirements for
`pro hac vice admission. Id. at 1–2; see Unified Patents, slip op. at 3–4.
`Having reviewed Mr. Olejko’s declaration, we determine that Mr.
`Olejko has sufficient qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`proceeding. Additionally, we determine Patent Owner has shown good
`cause for Mr. Olejko’s pro hac vice admission in this proceeding.
`
`
`ORDER
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Daniel F. Olejko is granted, and Mr. Olejko 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. Olejko 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
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Olejko 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.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01362
`Patent 9,083,850 B1
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Lori Gordon
`lgordon-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Steven Pappas
`spappas@skgf.com
`
`Michael Specht
`mspecht-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Michael Ray
`mray-ptab@skgf.com
`
`Byron Pickard
`bpickard@skgf.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Justin Kimble
`jkimble-ipr@bcpc-law.com
`
`Nicholas Kliewer
`nkliewer@bcpc-law.com
`
`Terry A. Saad
`tsaad@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`