`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYANOTECH CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`v.
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2013-004011
`
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`____________
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`____________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`ROBERT A. ROWAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`____________
`
`
`Submitted: June 11, 2014
`
`
`
`1 Consolidated with Case IPR2013-00404
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Robert A. Rowan
`
`
`IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner (Cyanotech Corporation), by
`
`and through its attorneys, hereby respectfully moves for the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Robert A. Rowan, litigation counsel for the co-pending patent lawsuit
`
`concerning the same parties and the same patent in the Middle District of Florida.
`
`Petitioner has already conferred with Patent Owner about this motion and Patent
`
`Owner is unopposed to its filing. In support of this motion, Petitioner states as
`
`follows:
`
`Good cause exists under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Robert A. Rowan as co-counsel in this matter. Mr. Rowan represents
`
`defendants Cyanotech Corporation and Nutrex Hawaii, Inc. in an ongoing patent
`
`infringement action in the Middle District of Florida (12-cv-366, filed June 29,
`
`2012) (“the Florida Litigation”). The Florida Litigation involves the same parties
`
`as this action (the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and Cyanotech
`
`Corporation) and the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,527,533 (“the ‘533 patent”)).
`
`The Florida Litigation has been ongoing for almost two years, and the parties have
`
`invested significant time and financial resources in litigating the validity of the
`
`‘533 patent. See also Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`Litigation Counsel, Paper 19) (“For example, in the Florida Litigation the parties
`
`have exchanged validity contentions, filed claim construction briefs, conducted a
`
`deposition of a claim construction expert, and engaged in discovery regarding
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Robert A. Rowan
`
`
`IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`
`validity, including the production and review of thousands of documents.”) Mr.
`
`Rowan was the lead attorney with respect to each of these activities. As a result,
`
`Mr. Rowan has developed an intimate familiarity with the ‘533 patent and its
`
`validity, and Petitioner wishes to have its existing litigation counsel continue
`
`representing Petitioner in this matter before the Board. Moreover, Mr. Rowan has
`
`reviewed all relevant filings in IPR2013-00401, attended the most recent
`
`conference call with the Board, and is familiar with the case at this stage of the
`
`proceeding.
`
`Pursuant to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Joseph A. Rhoa, a
`
`registered practitioner, will remain as lead counsel in this matter. Mr. Rhoa is a
`
`partner at Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., the same law firm that is representing
`
`Cyanotech Corporation in the ongoing Florida Litigation.
`
`Pursuant to the requirements of the “Order Authorizing Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639 (superseding the similar Order in
`
`Case IPR2013-00010), this Motion is also supported by the attached Declaration of
`
`Robert A. Rowan (Exhibit A).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the Declaration submitted
`
`herewith, Petitioner submits that good cause exists for the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Robert A. Rowan and respectfully requests that the Board grant this motion.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Robert A. Rowan
`
`
`IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAR:caj
`Nixon & Vanderhye P.C.
`901 North Glebe Road, 11th Floor
`Arlington, VA 22203-1808
`Telephone: (703) 816-4000
`Facsimile: (703) 816-4100
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Joseph A. Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`Counsel for Petitioner Cyanotech
`Corporation
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Robert A. Rowan
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00401
`Patent No. 5,527,533
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify service of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission of Robert A. Rowan to the following counsel for patent owner on
`
`June 11, 2014 via email (pursuant to agreement between the parties):
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Iain A. McIntrye
`Todd S. Werner
`Peter M. Kohlhepp
`CARLSON CASPERS
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com)
`(imcintyre@carlsoncaspers.com)
`(twerner@carlsoncaspers.com)
`(pkohlhepp@carlsoncaspers.com)
`
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph A. Rhoa/
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`Reg. No. 37,515
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
