`
` Date Entered: June 15, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCIETÀ ITALIANA PER LO SVILUPPO DELL’ELETTRONICA
`S.P.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anita Binayi-Ghiam
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`
`As authorized by the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition
`(Paper 4), Patent Owner, Società Italiana Per Lo Sviluppo Dell’Elettronica
`S.p.A., filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anita Binayi-Ghiam
`(“Motion,” Paper 6).1 Petitioner, Unified Patents Inc., did not oppose the
`Motion. The Motion is granted. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c); see also
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (setting forth requirements for pro hac vice
`admission).2
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for Anita
`
`Binayi-Ghiam is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Anita Binayi-Ghiam may not act as lead
`counsel in the proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner must remain as
`lead counsel throughout the proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Anita Binayi-Ghiam is to comply with
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of the C.F.R.; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Anita Binayi-Ghiam is to be subject to
`the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`
`
`1 Paper 6 also includes a declaration from Anita Binayi-Ghiam, identified as
`Exhibit A. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), combined documents are not
`permitted. All evidence, including declarations, must be filed separately in
`the form of an exhibit and properly labelled. For purposes of this Decision,
`we will not require refiling of the Declaration as an exhibit, however, all
`future filings shall comply with the requirements of § 42.6.
`2 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/ptab_trials.jsp,
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices,” “Other Representative
`Orders and Decisions”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00565
`Patent 6,754,580 B1
`
`
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et.
`seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Kevin Laurence
`Matthew Phillips
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW LLP
`kevin.laurence@renaissanceiplaw.com
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`Jonathan Stroud
`UNIFIED PATENTS INC.
`jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy Devlin, Reg. No. 41706
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`