AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL A. LADOW IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`I, Daniel A. Ladow, being duly sworn and upon oath, hereby attest to the
`
`following:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of New York (I resigned
`
`from the Rhode Island Bar in about 1986 after moving to New York), as well as
`
`the Bars of the following Federal Courts:
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`(1987); and
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1988);
`
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
`
`c)
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1996).
`
`2.
`
`I have not been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body;
`
`3.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied;
`
`4. No sanction or contempt citation has been imposed against me by any
`
`court or administrative body;
`
`5.
`
`I have 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 the
`
`C.F.R.;
`
`Active 21974827v1 021898.000010
`
`RB Ex. 2001
`BDSI V. RB PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.
`IPR2014—0032?
`
`

`

`6.
`
`I will be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Responsibility
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq., including disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`CPR. § 11.19(a);
`
`7.
`
`I have been recognized as counsel pro hac vice in IPR2013-OO459. I
`
`have not applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in any other proceeding
`
`in the last three (3) years; and
`
`8.
`
`I am an experienced litigating attorney, with experience, among other
`
`things, in numerous patent infiingement litigations in District Courts across the
`
`country, including experience in trials and Markman hearings, and before the
`
`Federal Circuit, experience in Interference proceedings and inter partes review
`
`before the Office, experience in § 146 civil actions, and experience in § 337 ITC
`
`investigations. A biographical profile is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`
`9.
`
`I am lead counsel for Patent Owner in co—pending litigation in which
`
`US. Patent No. 8,475,832 is asserted. As a result, I am familiar with the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding, including the prior art on which Petitioner relies
`
`in the Petition, as well as the issues of claim construction in the litigation.
`
`Active 21974827v1 021898.000010
`
`

`

`Dan e A. Ladow
`
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174
`Tel: (212) 704—6218
`Fax: (212) 704—5959
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`SS.:
`
`State of New York
`
`County of New York
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 14th day of April, 2014, by
`Daniel A. Ladow, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
`person who appeared before me.
`
`I. Wake/we 4 ,7/M 651 M
`Notary Public
`MARTHA L. MATOS
`NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
`No. 01MA5003558
`Qualified In Richmond County
`Certificate Filed In New York Cou
`Commission EXpimi Out. 26. 20 .
`
`-
`
`Active 21974827V1 021898.000010
`
`

`

`APPENDIX A
`
`Active 21974827vl 021898.000010
`
`

`

`Practice Areas
`Intellectual Property
`Life Sciences
`Business Litigation
`
`Education
`University of Michigan (J.D., 1985)
`cum laude
`Brown University (A.B., 1982)
`magna cum laude
`
`Bar and Court Admissions
`New York
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit
`U.S. District Court for the Southern
`District of New York
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`District of New York
`
`Memberships and Affiliations
`American Intellectual Property Law
`Association
`New York Intellectual Property Law
`Association
`Federal Circuit Bar Association
`
`Distinctions
`Selected to New York Super Lawyers
`2010, 2011  - Metro
`
`
`
`Daniel A. Ladow
`Partner
`
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174-0700
`212.704.6218 telephone
`212.704.5929 facsimile
`daniel.ladow@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`Dan focuses his practice on handling patent litigation in various technologies in
`courts throughout the country for both plaintiffs and defendants, from pre-litigation
`strategy through discovery, dispositive motions, trial and appeal, including patent
`infringement litigation, preliminary injunction actions, Hatch-Waxman cases, Section
`337 proceedings before the International Trade Commission, interference
`proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and appeals of
`interference decisions to district courts (§146 actions), as well as inter partes review
`proceedings under the AIA. He has extensive experience successfully handling
`patent appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including for
`patentees who had been unsuccessful in persuading the District Court of the
`correct construction of key claim terms.
`
`With particularly extensive experience in litigating complex patent cases, Dan has
`litigated a wide range of subject matters and technologies, including biotechnology,
`pharmaceuticals, scientific instruments, graphics processing technology, LEDs,
`semiconductors, the internet, electrical devices and computer disk technology, as
`well as technology and patent licenses. Dan also has substantial experience
`litigating business method patents in district courts and before the Federal Circuit,
`including relating to securities, the internet and dispute resolution.
`
`Dan also advises on and conducts due diligence-type analyses, including of
`pharmaceutical patent positions, particularly where patent litigation or adversary
`PTO proceedings are involved. He has assisted in-house counsel in coordinating
`U.S. and related foreign patent litigation and has advised on patent licensing and
`global patent portfolios.
`
`Publications and Speaking Engagements
`Dan has addressed both in-house audiences and industry conferences on patent
`law and litigation. He has, for example, spoken on the America Invents Act (AIA),
`Inter Partes Review proceedings under the AIA, addressed the implications of the
`Seagate decision at CLE presentations for in-house counsel, and was a featured
`speaker at The National Forum on Preventing and Defending Pharmaceutical and
`Biotech Patent Litigation in Washington, D.C, on "Navigating The Stormy Claim
`Construction Seas: The ‘Evolving’ Law, Litigation Strategy, Markman Hearings." He
`was also a speaker at "Managing Complex IP (Patent) Litigation," presented at the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Intellectual Property Law Update for Corporate Counsel in San Francisco.
`
`Representative Experience
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and MonoSol Rx Ltd v. Watson, Par,
`Alvogen (separate, related Hatch-Waxman cases relating to Suboxone® Sublingual
`film); In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation (II) and FTC v. Watson (Actavis) (patent
`counsel to one of the defendants in these patent/antitrust actions involving so-called
`“pay for delay” allegations; in the former case alleging sham litigation, plaintiffs’
`claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the latter case was decided by the
`U.S. Supreme Court in 2013); Life Technologies v. Pacific Biosciences (§146 action
`relating to single molecule sequencing); Silicon Graphics v. ATI and Advanced Micro
`Devices (successful representation of plaintiff in infringement action relating to
`graphics processing technology); Schubert v. Cree, Osram, Philips (separate
`infringement cases on same patent relating to LED technology); Representation of
`Complainant Gertrude Neumark Rothschild in consolidated ITC section 337
`proceedings captioned Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser
`Diodes and Products Containing Same and Certain Light Emitting Diode Chips,
`Laser Diode Chips and Products Containing Same, involving approximately 50
`respondent companies, including leading LED, laser diode, electronics and cell
`phone companies; Gertrude Neumark Rothschild v. Cree (settlement of
`semiconductor/LED patent infringement action after defeating defendant's motions
`for summary and winning partial summary judgment on certain issues); Cybersettle
`v. National Arbitration Forum (successfully represented plaintiff on a business
`method patent, including affirmance by Federal Circuit on key claim construction
`issues); Lava Trading v. royal blue plc and Sonic Trading (successful resolution of
`cases after having obtained reversal by the Federal Circuit of district court's claim
`construction of business method patent); Unimed Pharmaceuticals and
`Laboratories Besins v. Paddock Laboratories (Hatch-Waxman litigation); Novo
`Nordisk v. Teva and BTG (PTO interference proceeding, preliminary injunction and
`biotechnology patent infringement action); Abbott Laboratories and Fournier Pharma
`v. Par Pharmaceuticals (Hatch-Waxman litigation); Gauss v. Conair (based on post-
`trial motion arguments, obtained the Federal Circuit's overturning of verdict for
`plaintiff on electrical device patent); Interactive Gift Express (E-Data) v.
`Compuserve, et al (one of the first Internet-related business method patents before
`the Federal Circuit -- obtained reversal of district court's construction of multiple
`claim elements); Bertenshaw v. Ducharme (representation of Merck in a §146
`appeal to the district court from a patent office interference proceeding relating to
`VIOXX®); Novo Nordisk v. Genentech, Lilly, Serono and Pharmacia (represented
`patentee in biotechnology patent infringement action); Emory University v. Glaxo
`Wellcome (represented Glaxo in patent infringement action, patent interference
`proceeding and §146 appeal to the district court relating to Epivir®, then the leading
`anti-AIDS drug in North America; Emory University v. Glaxo Wellcome (patent
`inventorship, state law and ownership issues relating to data generated under a
`technology license); Genentech v. Novo Nordisk (represented defendant in an ITC
`
`6
`
`

`

`proceeding and two successive biotechnology patent infringement actions, including
`two favorable Federal Circuit decisions, the second of which held the asserted
`patent invalid in the context of an appeal from a preliminary injunction).
`
`7
`
` 
`