`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------
`
`FRONTIER WATER SYSTEMS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`------------------------
`
`Case: IPR2017-01468
`U.S. Patent No. 7,790,034
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`BRIAN D. ROCHE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`Description
`Declaration of Brian D. Roche in support of petitioner’s motion
`for pro hac vice admission pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`i
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Notice of Filing Date (Paper 3),
`
`which authorized the filing of motions for pro hac vice admission, Patent Owner
`
`Zenon Technology Partnership (“Patent Owner”) respectfully requests the pro hac
`
`vice admission of Brian D. Roche as additional back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner has indicated that it does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. TIME OF FILING
`In accordance with the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`Admission” entered in Case No. IPR2013-00639 (“Pro Hac Vice Order”), this
`
`motion is being filed no sooner than twenty-one days after service of the petition
`
`for inter partes review in this proceeding.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The following statement of facts shows good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Roche pro hac vice in the current proceeding:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s counsel has indicated that Petitioner does not oppose this
`
`motion.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David Pollock, is a registered USPTO
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 48,977), and a partner at the law firm of Reed
`
`Smith LLP.
`
`C. Mr. Roche is a partner at the law firm of Reed Smith LLP.
`
`1
`
`
`
`D. Mr. Roche is an experienced attorney who has been practicing for at
`
`least 34 years and litigating patent cases for over 20 years.
`
`E. Mr. Roche is admitted to practice law in Illinois, United States
`
`Supreme Court, United States District Court for the Northern District
`
`of Illinois, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
`
`F. Mr. Roche has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in the proceeding through his active representation as lead
`
`counsel of Patent Owner as a party in the related district court
`
`litigation pending in the United States District Court for the District of
`
`Utah, Case No. 2:17-cv-00261-JNP (“Frontier Litigation”). In the
`
`Frontier Litigation, Petitioner seeks a declaration of non-infringement
`
`with respect to the ’034 Patent. In that action, Patent Owner has
`
`counterclaimed for infringement of the ’034 Patent. Mr. Roche’s
`
`experience in actively litigating the ’034 patent against Petitioner
`
`provides him with an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`G.
`
`Pursuant to the Notice of Filing Date (Paper 3), which references the
`
`“Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, Mr. Roche has submitted a declaration in
`
`support of this motion as Exhibit 2001.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF MR. ROCHE IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`
`
`As counsel for Patent Owner, Mr. Roche has been actively involved in all
`
`aspects of the Frontier Litigation concerning the ’034 patent. In view of Mr.
`
`Roche’s knowledge of the subject matter at issue in this proceeding, Patent Owner
`
`has a substantial need for the pro hac vice admission and involvement of Mr.
`
`Roche in this proceeding. Further, Petitioner does not oppose this motion. Based
`
`on the facts contained herein and in Mr. Roche’s declaration (Ex. 2001), good
`
`cause exists for the admission of Mr. Roche pro hac vice as additional back-up
`
`counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Date: August 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s / David Pollock
`David Pollock (Reg. No. 48,977)
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe (Reg. No. 68,556)
`REED SMITH, LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on August
`
`18, 2017, a complete and entire copy of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Brian D. Roche Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) was provided
`
`electronically via email, pursuant to agreement of the parties under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.6(e)(1), to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of record of
`
`lead and back-up counsel as follows:
`
`Adam K. Yowell (Reg. No. 69,955)
`ayowell@bhfs.com
`Michael D. Rounds (pro hac vice pending)
`mrounds@bhfs.com
`Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
`5371 Kietzke Lane
`Reno, Nevada 89511
`Tel: 775.324.4100
`
`Paul J. Prendergast (Reg. No. 46,068)
`pprendergast@bhfs.com
`Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
`410 Seventeenth St, Suite 2200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: 303.223.1100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ David Pollock
`David Pollock
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`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
