`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`
`Patent No. 8,232,250
`
`DECLARATION OF DARYL L. WIESEN IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF DARYL L.
`WIESEN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2137
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00643
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`
`I, Daryl L. Wiesen, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I obtained a B.A. from Brown University in 1993, and a J.D. from
`
`Yale Law School in 1996.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently a partner in the law firm of Goodwin Procter LLP, a
`
`position which I have held since about 2004. In my nearly 20 years of practice, I
`
`have focused primarily on representing clients in patent litigations involving the
`
`chemical arts in United States district courts and the Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit. Through this work, I have gained extensive experience as a
`
`litigating attorney, particularly in patent cases.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
`
`Massachusetts and am admitted to practice before the United States District Court
`
`for the District of Massachusetts, the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
`
`4.
`
`Concurrently with this application, I am applying to appear pro hac
`
`vice in IPR2015-00644 and IPR2015-00830. I have not applied to appear pro hac
`
`vice in any other proceeding before the Office in the last three years.
`
`5.
`
`I have represented Teva generally in litigating a number of
`
`pharmaceutical patent cases, including as:
`
`
`
`
`D1
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2137
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00643
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`
`a. trial counsel in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Med., Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`1:10-cv-01376-TWP-DKL in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
`
`Indiana.
`
`b. trial counsel in Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D Inc. et al v.
`
`Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Co. et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-01101-GMS in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware.
`
`6.
`
`I have been litigating issues relating to Copaxone and/or GA for more
`
`than 6 years.
`
`7.
`
`I have represented Teva generally in litigating a number of cases
`
`related to GA/Copolymer 1, as well as the Copaxone 20mg product, including as:
`
`a. trial and appellate counsel in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-08824-WHP in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Southern District of New York.
`
`b. trial and appellate counsel in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-07246-KBF in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Southern District of New York.
`
`8.
`
`I have substantial familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,232,250 (“the ’250
`
`patent”), the patent at issue in this proceeding, against Petitioner and several other
`
`defendants in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`
`
`
`
`D2
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2137
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00643
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`
`Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01278-GMS in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Delaware (consolidated as In re Copaxone 40 MG Consolidated Cases,
`
`Case No. 1:14-cv-01171-GMS (D. Del.)). I serve as litigation counsel for Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva
`
`Neuroscience, Inc. and Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., in that
`
`litigation, as well as in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00167-IMK in the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. In the course of these
`
`proceedings, I have developed a strong familiarity with the ’250 patent, its
`
`prosecution history, the general subject matter to which the ’250 patent is directed,
`
`and the prior art references relied upon by Petitioner in support of its invalidity
`
`grounds in this proceeding. Furthermore, I have thoroughly reviewed the Petition
`
`and accompanying Exhibits submitted in this proceeding.
`
`9.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`10.
`
`I have never had an application for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body denied.
`
`11.
`
`I have never been subject to any sanction or contempt citation
`
`imposed by any court or administrative body.
`
`
`
`
`D3
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2137
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00643
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`
`12.
`
`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 37 C.F.R.
`
`13.
`
`I agree to 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).
`
`14.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
`
`correct. I further declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are
`
`true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true;
`
`and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issued
`
`thereon.
`
`Executed on: December 18, 2015
`
`/Daryl L. Wiesen/
`Daryl L. Wiesen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D4
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`YEDA EXHIBIT NO. 2137
`MYLAN PHARM. v YEDA
`IPR2015-00643