`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: October 25, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ONE-E-WAY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before DAVID C. MCKONE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Decision pertains to both of these cases. Therefore, we exercise our
`discretion to issue a single Decision to be filed in each case. The parties are
`not authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Patent Owner filed a motion for pro hac vice admission of Payson
`LeMeilleur in the above-listed proceedings on October 20, 2017. Paper 31.2
`In an email to the Board on October 23, 2017, Patent Owner explained that
`the motion contained a typographical error. Patent Owner requested that we
`expunge the motion and consider a corrected version. Pursuant to Patent
`Owner’s request, the motion is expunged.
`Patent Owner filed a corrected motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Payson LeMeilleur in the above-listed proceedings on October 23, 2017.
`Paper 33 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Petitioner does not oppose the Motion.
`Mot. 1. For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.
`II. ANALYSIS
`Counsel may be admitted pro hac vice upon a showing of good cause,
`subject to the condition that lead counsel is a registered practitioner. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Specifically, if lead counsel is a registered practitioner,
`back-up counsel 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.” Id. For the
`reasons set forth in the Motion and the accompanying affidavit of Mr.
`LeMeilleur (Ex. 2002), we find that good cause exists to admit Mr.
`LeMeilleur pro hac vice in the above-listed proceedings.
`
`
`2 We cite to the record in IPR2016-01638.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Motion is granted, and Mr. Payson LeMeilleur is
`authorized to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. LeMeilleur is to comply with the
`Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`Federal Regulations, and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and is
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq., and to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01638 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`IPR2016-01639 (Patent 9,282,396 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Flock
`Paul T. Qualey
`ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP
`johnflock@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`paulqualey@andrewskurthkenyon.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Daphne Burton
`BURTON IP LAW GROUP
`dburton@burtoniplaw.com
`
`Thomas D. Robbins
`tom@trpatents.com
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2dgm@knobbe.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
