`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ENZYMOTEC LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES AND BIORESSOURCES INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2014-00556
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF DANIEL
`P. MARGOLIS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00556
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Daniel P. Margolis
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s “Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response,” dated April 10, 2014 (Paper
`
`5), authorizing the parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Enzymotec Ltd. respectfully requests that the Board
`
`allow Daniel P. Margolis to appear pro hac vice on its behalf in this proceeding.
`
`II. REASONS THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED
`
`
`
`As set forth in the Statement of Material Facts below, as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner has demonstrated good cause to admit Dr. Margolis
`
`pro hac vice in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner’s lead counsel is a
`
`registered practitioner, and Dr. Margolis is an experienced litigating attorney
`
`having an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, this motion is being filed more than twenty one days after
`
`service of the petition; includes a statement of facts showing good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Dr. Margolis pro hac vice; and is accompanied by the
`
`declaration of Daniel P. Margolis in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission (Ex. 1081), all in accordance with the “Order Authorizing Motion
`
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00556
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Daniel P. Margolis
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) provides:
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland, lead counsel for Petition Enzymotec Ltd. in this
`
`proceeding, is a registered practitioner holding Registration No. 47,657.
`
`3.
`
`As set forth in the declaration of Daniel P. Margolis in Support of
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Ex. 1081), Dr. Margolis is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney. Specifically, Dr. Margolis has nearly eight years
`
`of experience representing clients in patent litigations, primarily in the chemical
`
`arts, in United States district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
`
`and the International Trade Commission. (Ex. 1081, ¶ 2).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00556
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Daniel P. Margolis
`
`
`Dr. Margolis also has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`4.
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding. Patent Owner previously asserted U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,278,351 (“the ’351 patent”), the patent at issue in this proceeding, against
`
`Enzymotec Ltd. in Investigation No. 337-TA-887 before the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (“the ITC case”). Dr. Margolis was litigation
`
`counsel for Enzymotec Ltd. in that Investigation, and in the course of that
`
`representation, developed a strong familiarity with the ’351 patent, its prosecution
`
`history, and the general subject matter to which the ’351 patent is directed. (Ex.
`
`1081, ¶ 10). Dr. Margolis also became particularly familiar with the prior art
`
`references relied upon by Petitioner in support of its invalidity grounds in this
`
`proceeding, as they were similarly relied upon by Petitioner in the ITC case. (Id.).
`
`Additionally, Dr. Margolis has thoroughly reviewed the Petition and
`
`accompanying Exhibits submitted in this proceeding. (Id.).
`
`5.
`
`Dr. Margolis has attested to the each of the requirements set forth in
`
`paragraph 2(b) of the “Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7. (Ex. 1081, ¶¶ 3-10).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully submits that the
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) have been satisfied, and requests an Order
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00556
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Daniel P. Margolis
`
`
`permitting Daniel P. Margolis to appear pro hac vice on its behalf in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth J. Holland/
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`Tel: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Enzymotec Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2014
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that “MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`
`
`
`
`
`ADMISSION OF DANIEL P. MARGOLIS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c),”
`
`“DECLARATION OF DANIEL P. MARGOLIS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`
`FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c),” and
`
`“ENZYMOTEC LTD.’S UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST” were served by electronic
`
`mail on this 30th day of May 2014 on the following:
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No. 53,179)
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel: (212) 425-7200
`Fax: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Enzymotec Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen L. Altieri, Ph.D.
`J. Dean Farmer, Ph.D.
`IPR2014-00556@cooley.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2014
`
`