`Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 35
`
`
` Entered: March 27, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2012-00026 (TLG)
`Case IPR2013-00109 (TLG)
`Patent 6,757,717
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`____________
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Salumeh R. Loesch. Paper 34. The motion is unopposed.
`
`The motion is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice, the Board requires the moving party to
`
`provide 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 IPR2013-00010, Order
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Paper 6, Oct. 15, 2012).
`
`In its motion, Petitioner states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Ms. Loesch pro hac vice during this proceeding, because Ms.
`
`Loesch is an experienced litigating attorney with an established familiarity
`
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. In addition, the motion
`
`states that Ms. Loesch is counsel for Petitioner in related litigation between
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner involving the same patent as this proceeding.
`
`Ms. Loesch had made a declaration attesting to, and sufficiently explaining,
`
`these facts. Ex. 1021. The declaration complies with the requirements set
`
`forth in the above Order.
`
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that
`
`Ms. Loesch has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent
`
`Petitioner in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a
`
`need for Petitioner to have its related litigation counsel involved in this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner has also established that there is good
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`cause for admitting Ms. Loesch.
`
`It is therefore
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Salumeh R. Loesch for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Loesch 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 the C.F.R., and to be subject to the Office’s Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2012-00026
`Case IPR2013-00109
`Patent 6,757,717
`
`For Patent Owner
`Matthew L. Cutler
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`mcutler@hdp.com
`
`Bryan K. Wheelock
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC
`bwheelock@hdp.com
`
`For Petitioner
`
`John D. Vandenberg
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`
`Stephen J. Joncus
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.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
