`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 14
` Entered: April 25, 2014
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00325
`Patent 8,475,832
`____________
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`ZHENYU YANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BONILLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`RB Pharmaceuticals Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a motion for pro hac
`
`vice admission of Daniel A. Ladow. Paper 12 (“Mot.”). The motion is unopposed.
`
`The motion is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00325
`Patent 8,475,832
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Paper 9 at 2.
`
`In its motion, Patent Owner states that there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize Mr. Ladow as pro hac vice backup counsel during this proceeding,
`
`because Mr. Ladow is an experienced litigation attorney with an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Mot. 3-4. More
`
`specifically, Patent Owner points out that Mr. Ladow has been lead counsel for
`
`Patent Owner in several co-pending district court actions involving the same patent
`
`at issue in this proceeding. Id. Mr. Ladow has made a declaration attesting to, and
`
`sufficiently explaining, these facts. Ex. 2001, 2. The declaration complies with
`
`the requirements set forth in the Notice.
`
`Upon consideration, Patent Owner has sufficiently demonstrated that
`
`Mr. Ladow has sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent
`
`Owner in this proceeding. Moreover, the Board recognizes that there is a need for
`
`Patent Owner to have its related litigation counsel involved in this proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has established that there is good cause for admitting
`
`Mr. Ladow.
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that the Patent Owner motion for pro hac vice admission of
`
`Daniel A. Ladow for this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00325
`Patent 8,475,832
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ladow 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. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`
`Danielle L. Herritt
`McCarter & English, LLP
`dherritt@mccarter.com
`
`Kia L. Freeman
`McCarter & English, LLP
`kfreeman@mccarter.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`James M. Bollinger
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`james.bollinger@troutmansanders.com
`
`Daniel A. Ladow
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`daniel.ladow@troutmansanders.com
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
