Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LEVITATION ARTS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FLYTE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00073
`
`Patent D799,100
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MATTHEW G. McANDREWS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LEVITATION ARTS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FLYTE LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case PGR2018-00073
`
`Patent D799,100
`____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MATTHEW G. McANDREWS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Levitation Arts, Inc. (“Petitioner”
`
`or “Levitation Arts”), by and through its attorneys, respectfully requests that the
`
`Board admit Matthew G. McAndrews pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) states as follows:
`
`
`
`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 and to any other conditions as the Board may impose. For example,
`
`where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice
`
`by counsel who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that
`
`counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with
`
`the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Further, the Board requires that a motion for pro hac vice admission be filed
`
`in accordance with the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”
`
`in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (“Representative Order”). The Representative
`
`Order states that the motion must “[c]ontain a statement of facts showing there is
`
`good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceedings,”
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`and “[b]e accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`
`appear attesting to the following:”
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`
`the District of Columbia;
`
`ii. No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear 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. The individual 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. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual
`
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`Based on the following statement of facts, and supported by the Declaration
`
`of Matthew G. McAndrews submitted herewith, Levitation Arts submits that a
`
`showing of good cause has been made and respectfully requests the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Matthew G. McAndrews in this proceeding:
`
`1. Petitioner’s lead counsel, Brian P. Lynch, is a registered practitioner
`
`(Reg. No. 58,794).
`
`2. Mr. McAndrews is a partner of the law firm of Niro McAndrews, LLP.
`
`Declaration of Matthew G. McAndrews in Support of Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission.
`
`3. Mr. McAndrews is an experienced intellectual property litigation
`
`attorney, and particularly, patent litigation, with over twenty-three years
`
`of experience and has litigated over 100 intellectual property cases. Id. at
`
`¶8.
`
`4. Mr. McAndrews is a member in good standing of the Illinois State Bar.
`
`Id. at ¶1.
`
`5. Mr. McAndrews has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶2.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`6. No application for admission filed by Mr. McAndrews to the bar of any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied. Id. at ¶3.
`
`7. No sanctions or contempt citations have been imposed against Mr.
`
`McAndrews by any court or administrative body. Id. at ¶4.
`
`8. Mr. McAndrews has read and agrees to comply with the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth
`
`in part 42 of Title 37 of the C.F.R. Id. at ¶5.
`
`9. Mr. McAndrews understands that he will be subject to the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office Code of Professional Responsibility set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. at ¶6.
`
`10. Mr. McAndrews has not sought pro hac vice admission in any other
`
`proceeding before the Board within the last three (3) years.
`
`11. Mr. McAndrews has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Mr. McAndrews has represented Petitioner with
`
`respect to the Petitioner’s intellectual property on levitating objects since
`
`May of 2016.
`
`12. Mr. McAndrews has engaged closely in various aspects of the case, and
`
`as a result, Mr. McAndrews has acquired substantial understanding of the
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`underlying legal and technological issues at stake in this proceeding.
`
`Levitation Arts has expended significant time and resources with Mr.
`
`McAndrews and wishes to continue using Mr. McAndrews as counsel in
`
`this proceeding. Mr. McAndrews has represented Petitioner with respect
`
`to levitating objects in numerous Illinois and Delaware district court
`
`proceedings, including Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Plox, Inc., Case No.
`
`1:2017-cv-01476 (D. Del.), Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Summit Electronics
`
`LLC, Case No. 1:2017-cv-00613 (N.D. Ill.), Levitation Arts, Inc. v.
`
`Summit Electronics LLC d/b/a Summit CE Group, Case No. 1:2016-cv-
`
`08980 (N.D. Ill.), Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Flyte LLC, Case No. 1:2016-cv-
`
`08979 (N.D. Ill.), Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Summit Electronics LLC, Case
`
`No. 1:2016-cv-07869 (N.D. Ill.), and Levitation Arts, Inc. v. Flyte LLC,
`
`Case No. 1:2016-cv-07545 (N.D. Ill.). McAndrews Dec. ¶ 8.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MATTHEW G. MCANDREWS
`
`
`
`The facts outlined in the Statement of Facts, and contained in the Declaration
`
`of Matthew G. McAndrews, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr.
`
`McAndrews pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10. Levitation
`
`Arts’ lead counsel is a registered practitioner. As supported by Mr. McAndrews’
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`declaration, Mr. McAndrews is an experienced litigation attorney with more than 23
`
`years of intellectual property litigation experience. Mr. McAndrews has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue, and has extensive experience
`
`representing Levitation Arts Inc. on the matter of levitating objects.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`In light of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board admit
`
`Matthew G. McAndrews pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: September 6, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Brian P. Lynch/
`Brian P. Lynch
`Registration No. 58,794
`blynch@niro-mcandrews.com
`NIRO MCANDREWS, LLP
`200 West Madison Street, Suite 2040
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 755-8581
`Fax: (312) 674-7481
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew G. McAndrews under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Post Grant Review of U.S. Pat. No. D799,100
`Case No. PGR2018-00073
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that pursuant to 35 USC 322(a)(5), 37 CFR 42.69(e)
`
`and 42.105(b), a complete copy of Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Matthew G. McAndrews in this Post Grant Review has been served electronically
`
`in its entirety to the attorneys of record for the Patent Owner’s representative this
`
`September 6, 2018, via email:
`
`Nigamnarayan Acharya
`Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2900
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Nigam.Acharya@lewisbrisbois.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 6, 2018
`
`/Brian P. Lynch/
`Brian P. Lynch
`Registration No. 58,794
`blynch@niro-mcandrews.com
`NIRO MCANDREWS, LLP
`200 West Madison Street, Suite 2040
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 755-8581
`Fax: (312) 674-7481
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
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
