`571-272-7822
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`Paper No. 26
`Entered: November 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-00114
`Patent 7,206,978 B2
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jeffrey Shneidman, Ph.D.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00114
`Patent 7,206,978 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`On August 30, 2017, Petitioner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Dr. Jeffrey Shneidman. Paper 20 (“Mot.”). Petitioner
`indicates that its Motion is not opposed. Id. For the reasons
`+provided below, Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`In accordance with 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. In these
`proceedings, lead counsel for Petitioner is a registered practitioner.
`Petitioner asserts that there is good cause for us to recognize Dr. Shneidman
`pro hac vice in these proceedings. Mot. 1. Petitioner’s assertions in this
`regard are supported by the Declaration of Dr. Shneidman. Ex. 1012.
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration from Dr. Shneidman, we conclude that Dr. Shneidman has
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these
`cases, that Dr. Shneidman has demonstrated the necessary familiarity with
`the subject matter of these cases, and that there is a need for Petitioner to
`have counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in patent matters
`involved in these cases. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause
`for Dr. Shneidman’s pro hac vice admission. Dr. Shneidman will be
`permitted to appear pro hac vice in these cases as back-up counsel only. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00114
`Patent 7,206,978 B2
`
`
`III. ORDER
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s unopposed Motion for
`pro hac vice admission of Dr. Jeffrey Shneidman is granted, and Dr.
`Shneidman is authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in this
`proceeding only;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Shneidman shall comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Shneidman shall be subject to the
`Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), as well as the
`Office’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
`et. seq.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00114
`Patent 7,206,978 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`David Hoffman
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`IPR37307-0008IP1@fr.com
`
`Martha Hopkins
`LAW OFFICES OF S.J. CHRISTINE YANG
`IPR@sjclawpc.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth Weatherwax
`Nathan Lowenstein
`LOWENSTEIN & WEATHERWAX LLP
`weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com
`lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.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
