`571.272.7822 Paper No. 14, IPR2016-01751
` Paper No. 14, IPR2016-01753
` Paper No. 14, IPR2016-01754
` Paper No. 14, IPR2016-01755
`
` Entered: February 1, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SD3, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01750 (Patent 7,225,712 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01751 (Patent 7,600,455 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01753 (Patent 7,895,927 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01754 (Patent 8,011,279 B2);
`Case IPR2016-01755 (Patent 8,191,450 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before SCOTT A. DANIELS, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Decision on Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Mark A. Hannemann
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses a pro hac vice motion filed in five proceedings. We,
`therefore, exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each of the
`cases. The parties are not authorized to use this heading style in their papers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01750; Case IPR2016-01751; Case IPR2016-01753;
`Case IPR2016-01754; Case IPR2016-01755
`
`
`In each of the above captioned proceedings, Petitioner filed a motion
`
`for pro hac vice admission of Mark A. Hannemann. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`
`01750, Paper 4. The motion is supported by a declaration of Mr.
`
`Hannemann in each proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 1042 of IPR2016-01750.
`
`Patent Owner does not oppose any of these motions.
`
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and there is good cause to
`
`admit Mr. Hannemann pro hac vice.
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`
`Mark A. Hannemann is granted, and Mr. Hannemann is authorized to
`
`represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in each of the proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner as lead counsel in each proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hannemann 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. Hannemann 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01750; Case IPR2016-01751; Case IPR2016-01753;
`Case IPR2016-01754; Case IPR2016-01755
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Patrick Colsher
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`patrick.colsher@shearman.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jared W. Newton
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`jarednewton@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`