`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 28
`
`Date Entered: July 16, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`DONGHEE AMERICA, INC. and DONGHEE ALABAMA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED INNOVATION AND RESEARCH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-016051 (Patent 7,166,253 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01633 (Patent 6,866,812 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01647 (Patent 6,814,921 B1)
`Case IPR2017-01654 (Patent 9,079,490 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01890 (Patent 9,399,327 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01945 (Patent 9,399,326 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`ROBERT L. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one order to be entered in these six
`proceedings. The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for
`subsequent papers without prior Board approval.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01605 (Patent 7,166,253 B2)
`IPR2017-01633 (Patent 6,866,812 B2)
`IPR2017-01647 (Patent 6,814,921 B1)
`IPR2017-01654 (Patent 9,079,490 B2)
`IPR2017-01890 (Patent 9,399,327 B2)
`IPR2017-01945 (Patent 9,399,326 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`On July 5, 2018, Petitioner filed a Pro Hac Vice Motion to Admit Nicholas
`H. Lam in each of the above-referenced proceedings (collectively, “Motions”).
`IPR2017-01605, Paper 25.2 The Motions are supported by the Declarations of
`Mr. Lam. IPR2017-01605, Paper 26.3 Petitioner represents in the Motions that
`Mr. Lam is an experienced patent litigation attorney and that good cause exists for
`the Board to recognize Mr. Lam pro hac vice. Paper 25, 5–6. Mr. Lam represents
`that he has sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding.
`Paper 26 ¶ 4. Petitioner represents that counsel for Patent Owner does not oppose
`the Motions. Paper 25, 3.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel pro hac
`vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In authorizing a motion
`for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the moving party to provide a
`statement of facts showing good cause exists for the Board to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to appear in
`the proceeding. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`
`
`2 The Motions for Mr. Lam that Petitioner filed in these proceedings are
`substantively identical. Accordingly, we refer to the papers filed in IPR2017-
`01605 unless otherwise noted. In addition to IPR2017-01605, Paper 25, this Order
`resolves IPR2017-01633, Paper 20; IPR2017-01647, Paper 19; IPR2017-01654,
`Paper 22; IPR2017-01890, Paper 19; and IPR2017-01945, Paper 19.
`3 Petitioner filed the Declarations as Papers. Petitioner is reminded again that
`affidavits and declarations must be filed as exhibits so that they may be referenced
`individually by exhibit number. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63. Further, Exhibits should
`be given a title in PTAB-E2E more descriptive than the exhibit number (i.e.,
`Exhibit 1002, or Exhibit 2002). For example, Exhibit 1001 could have been titled
`“The ’253 patent,” or similar.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01605 (Patent 7,166,253 B2)
`IPR2017-01633 (Patent 6,866,812 B2)
`IPR2017-01647 (Patent 6,814,921 B1)
`IPR2017-01654 (Patent 9,079,490 B2)
`IPR2017-01890 (Patent 9,399,327 B2)
`IPR2017-01945 (Patent 9,399,326 B2)
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order —
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and good cause exists to admit
`Mr. Lam pro hac vice in these proceedings.
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion seeking admission pro hac vice for
`Nicholas H. Lam in each of these proceedings is GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file an updated mandatory
`notice identifying Mr. Lam as back-up counsel in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lam is authorized to represent Petitioner as
`back-up counsel only, and that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lam shall comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in
`Part 42 of 37 C.F.R.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Lam 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 et seq., which took effect on
`May 3, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01605 (Patent 7,166,253 B2)
`IPR2017-01633 (Patent 6,866,812 B2)
`IPR2017-01647 (Patent 6,814,921 B1)
`IPR2017-01654 (Patent 9,079,490 B2)
`IPR2017-01890 (Patent 9,399,327 B2)
`IPR2017-01945 (Patent 9,399,326 B2)
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Alyssa Caridis
`Bas de Blank
`Donald Daybell
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON, & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`a8cptabdocket@orrick.com
`m2bptabdocket@orrick.com
`d2dptabdocket@orrick.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert C. Mattson
`Vincent Shier
`Christopher Ricciuti
`OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP
`CPDocketMattson@oblon.com
`CPDocketShier@oblon.com
`CPDocketRicciuti@oblon.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`