`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper No. 14
` Filed: November 14, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`——————
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`——————
`EVERNOTE CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TALSK RESEARCH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`——————
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`——————
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Robert Frederickson III
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`
`On October 27, 2017, Petitioner Evernote Corporation filed a motion
`for Robert Frederickson III to appear pro hac vice (Paper 11), which was
`accompanied by a declaration of Mr. Frederickson in support of the motion
`(Exhibit 1022, 10/27/2017). During the initial conference call held
`November 1, 2017, we authorized Petitioner to file a corrected declaration of
`Mr. Frederickson, and on November 9, 2017, Petitioner filed a corrected
`declaration (Exhibit 1022, 11/9/2017). Patent Owner Talsk Research, Inc.
`does not oppose this motion. For the reasons provided below, Evernote’s
`motion is granted.
`As set forth in 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 authorizing a
`motion for pro hac vice, we also require the moving party to provide a
`statement of facts showing that there is good cause for us to recognize
`counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking
`to appear in the proceeding.
`In the instant proceeding, the lead counsel for Petitioner is Douglas J.
`Kline, a registered practitioner. See Paper 2 at 2. Upon review of
`Petitioner’s Motion and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner
`has demonstrated that Mr. Frederickson has sufficient legal and technical
`qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding. See Paper 11;
`Ex. 1022, 11/9/2017. We also recognize that Petitioner has a need for
`Mr. Frederickson to be involved in the proceeding at issue. Accordingly,
`Petitioner has established that there is good cause for admitting
`Mr. Frederickson.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Robert Frederickson III is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Frederickson is authorized to
`represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Frederickson 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 Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, and 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 et. seq.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01154
`Patent 7,178,097 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Douglas Kline
`Adeel Haroon
`GOODWIN PROCTOR LLP
`dkline@goodwinprocter.com
`aharoon@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Scott McKeown
`Victor Cheung
`OBLON, McCLELLAND, MAIER
` & NEUSTADT, LLP
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`cpdocketcheung@oblon.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
