`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: November 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MIRA ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01052
`Patent 8,848,892 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MINN CHUNG, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Decision
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of
`J. Christopher Carraway
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01052
`Patent 8,848,892 B2
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion requesting pro
`hac vice admission of J. Christopher Carraway in this proceeding in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, and provided a Declaration from Mr.
`Carraway in support of its request. See Paper 8; Ex. 1009. Mira Advanced
`Technology Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) does not oppose the Motion.
`For the reasons provided below, Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`
`I. DISCUSSION
`As set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board 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. For example,
`where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a non-registered
`practitioner 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.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c). In authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board
`also requires a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board
`to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the
`individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. See Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3–4 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7) (setting forth the requirements for pro hac vice admission).
`J. Christopher Carraway provides uncontroverted testimony that he:
`is a member in good standing of the State Bars of Oregon,
`i.
`Washington, and Montana;
`has not been subject to any suspensions or disbarments from
`practice before any court or administrative body;
`
`ii.
`
`2
`
`
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`IPR2017-01052
`Patent 8,848,892 B2
`
`
`iii.
`
`has never had any application for admission to practice before
`any court or administrative body denied;
`has not been subject to sanctions or contempt citations imposed
`by any court or administrative body;
`has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`vi. will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq. and disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`vii. has listed all other proceedings before the Office for which he
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years;
`and
`viii. has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`proceeding.
`Lead counsel for Petitioner, Andrew M. Mason, who is registered to
`practice at the USPTO has provided a statement of facts that J. Christopher
`Carraway is counsel for Petitioner in related co-pending litigation and is
`familiar with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Paper 8, 2.
`Thus, Petitioner has shown good cause why J. Christopher Carraway should
`be recognized pro hac vice for purposes of this proceeding. Mr. Carraway
`has provided the requisite affidavit or declaration. Therefore, J. Christopher
`Carraway has complied with the requirements for admission pro hac vice in
`this proceeding.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01052
`Patent 8,848,892 B2
`
`
`II. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of J.
`Christopher Carraway is granted, and Mr. Carraway 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 J. Christopher Carraway 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 J. Christopher Carraway is to be subject
`to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101–
`11.901.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01052
`Patent 8,848,892 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Andrew Mason
`John Vandenberg
`J. Christopher Carraway
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`chris.carraway@klarquist.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph Zito
`Richard Castellano
`DNL ZITO
`jzito@dnlzito.com
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`
`Paul Grandinetti
`LEVY & GRANDINETTI
`mail@levygrandinetti.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`