`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 15
`Entered: January 24, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2018-00036 (Patent 9,662,580 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00039 (Patent 9,669,308 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00050 (Patent 9,675,886 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00055 (Patent 9,687,744 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00060 (Patent 9,694,287 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00061 (Patent 9,700,793 B2)1
`
`____________
`
`
`
`LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Michael J. Sacksteder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The
`parties are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00036 (Patent 9,662,580 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00039 (Patent 9,669,308 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00050 (Patent 9,675,886 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00055 (Patent 9,687,744 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00060 (Patent 9,694,287 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00061 (Patent 9,700,793 B2)
`
`On January 14, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Michael J. Sacksteder in each of the above-identified
`proceedings (Paper 102 (“Motions”)), respectively accompanied by
`Declarations of Mr. Sacksteder in support of the Motions. Ex. 10063
`(“Declarations”). Patent Owner did not oppose the Motions within the
`requisite time period. For the reasons provided below, Petitioner’s Motions
`are granted.
`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 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 the proceeding. See Paper 3, 2 (citing
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (“Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission”)).
`
`
`2 For purposes of expediency, we refer to papers and exhibits filed in
`PGR2018-00036. Petitioner filed similar Motions in PGR2018-00039
`(Paper 17), PGR2018-00050 (Paper 13), PGR2018-00055 (Paper 16),
`PGR2018-00060 (Paper 14), and PGR2018-00061 (Paper 9).
`3 Petitioner filed similar Declarations in PGR2018-00039 (Ex. 1008),
`PGR2018-00050 (Ex. 1005), PGR2018-00055 (Ex. 1009), PGR2018-00060
`(Ex. 1007), and PGR2018-00061 (Ex. 1007).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00036 (Patent 9,662,580 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00039 (Patent 9,669,308 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00050 (Patent 9,675,886 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00055 (Patent 9,687,744 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00060 (Patent 9,694,287 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00061 (Patent 9,700,793 B2)
`
`
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Sacksteder has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in the above-identified
`proceedings, and that Mr. Sacksteder has demonstrated sufficient familiarity
`with the subject matter of the above-identified proceedings. See Motions;
`Declarations. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro
`hac vice admission of Mr. Sacksteder in the above-identified proceedings.
`Mr. Sacksteder will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Sacksteder are granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must continue to have a
`registered practitioner serve as lead counsel in the above-identified
`proceedings, but that Mr. Sacksteder is authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sacksteder is to comply with the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide August 2018 Update, 83 Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13,
`2018), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of
`Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Sacksteder is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00036 (Patent 9,662,580 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00039 (Patent 9,669,308 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00050 (Patent 9,675,886 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00055 (Patent 9,687,744 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00060 (Patent 9,694,287 B2)
`Case PGR2018-00061 (Patent 9,700,793 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jennifer R. Bush
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`jbush-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`PGR2018-00039, -00050, -00060
`Jesse O. Collier
`B. Graham Nelson
`OLIFF PLC
`lmostrom@olff.com
`bnelson@oliff.com
`PGR2018-00036, -00061
`Timothy J. Maier
`Siddhesh V. Pandi
`Christopher J. Maier
`MAIER & MAIER, PLLC
`tjm@maierandmaier.com
`svp@maierandmaier.com
`cjm@maierandmaier.com
`PGR2018-00055
`John C. Alemanni
`Andrew Rinehart
`Scott E. Kolassa
`Steven D. Moore
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`skolassa@kilpatricktownsend.com
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`4
`
`