`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 10
`
`
` Entered: December 1, 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 IPR2017-01411
`Patent 9,531,657 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01411
`Patent 9,531,657 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 6; Ex. 1012. 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.
`
`IPR2017-01411
`Patent 9,531,657 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 6, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01411
`Patent 9,531,657 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;
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01411
`Patent 9,531,657 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Andrew M. Mason
`John D. Vandenberg
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Joseph J. Zito
`Richard A. Castellano
`Paul Grandinetti
`DNL ZITO
`jzito@dnlzito.com
`rcastellano@dnlzito.com
`mail@levygrandinetti.com
`
`
`5
`
`
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
