Case No. IPR2015-00643
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`Case No. IPR2015-00830
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643 (8,232,250 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00644 (8,399,413 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00830 (8,969,302 B2)1
`____________________________
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH
`
`
`1 This Declaration of Shannon M. Bloodworth in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission addresses all above referenced cases. The word-for-word identical
`
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the caption.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`Case No. IPR2015-00830
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643 (8,232,250 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00644 (8,399,413 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00830 (8,969,302 B2)1
`____________________________
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH
`
`
`1 This Declaration of Shannon M. Bloodworth in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission addresses all above referenced cases. The word-for-word identical
`
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the caption.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) hereby respectfully requests that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) admit Shannon M. Bloodworth pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`Patent Owner has stated it will not oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts Showing Good Cause for the Board to Recognize
`Counsel Pro Hac Vice During the Proceeding
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board may admit counsel pro hac vice for
`
`good cause, so long as lead counsel is a registered practitioner and subject to any
`
`other conditions the Board requires. Under Section 42.10(c), good cause includes
`
`when “counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” This motion
`
`satisfies the requirements of Section 42.10(c):
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel, Jeffrey Guise, is a registered practitioner.
`
`2. Ms. Bloodworth is an experienced patent litigator and has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue here, as shown in her
`
`accompanying October 8, 2015 Declaration (“Bloodworth Decl.”), attached hereto.
`
`That declaration shows that Ms. Bloodworth has been a litigator for 14 years. She
`
`is a member in good standing of the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
`
`Wisconsin, and is also admitted in several federal courts. She is also familiar with
`
`the subject matter of this case, including U.S. Patent No. 8,232,250, U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`No. 8,399,413 and U.S. Patent No. 8,969,302, the prosecution history for each
`
`patent, the underlying technology, and the prior art cited by the petitioner in this
`
`matter. Bloodworth Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.
`
`3.
`
`In her declaration, Ms. Bloodworth also attests to each of the listed
`
`items required by the Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission –
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10 in IPR2013-00639. See Bloodworth Decl. ¶¶ 2-13.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Mylan respectfully requests that the Board admit
`
`Shannon M. Bloodworth pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`Reg. No. 52,354
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6204
`Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
`Email: bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`Case No. IPR2015-00830
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643 (8,232,250 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00644 (8,399,413 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00830 (8,969,302 B2)1
`____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH
`
`
`
`1 This Declaration of Shannon M. Bloodworth in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission addresses all above referenced cases. The word-for-word identical
`
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the caption.
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Shannon M. Bloodworth, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am a partner in the patent litigation group at Perkins Coie LLP.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the States of Maryland
`
`and Wisconsin, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia. I am
`
`also admitted to practice before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth
`
`Circuit, D.C. Circuit, Federal Circuit and the United States Supreme Court. I am
`
`admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for D.C. and
`
`Maryland, and the Supreme Courts of Virginia and Wisconsin.
`
`3. My Bar membership numbers are VA 46671, DC 474925 and WI
`
`1088470.
`
`4.
`
`I have been practicing law for almost 15 years, including litigating
`
`patent cases, specifically focused on pharmaceutical patent cases, for the last
`
`14 years.
`
`5. More generally, I have represented the Petitioner and/or and its
`
`various related entities in litigating significant pharmaceutical patent cases, such as
`
`the following infringement cases:
`
`•
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`
`et al., Civil Action No.1:09-cv-08824-WHP (U.S. District Court for
`
`the Southern District of New York);
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
`
`et al., No. 10-cv-7246 (KBF) (U.S. District Court for the Southern
`
`District of New York);
`
`•
`
`Teva Pharmaceutical USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc.,
`
`et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01278-GMS (U.S. District Court of
`
`District of Delaware);
`
`•
`
`Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
`
`1:15-cv-03695 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`Illinois);
`
`•
`
`Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-05909-KM-JBC (U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of New Jersey);
`
`•
`
`Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Agila Specialties Inc.et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:15-cv-06039-RMB-KMW (U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of New Jersey);
`
`•
`
`Astrazeneca AB et al. v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd., Civil Action No.
`
`3:12-cv-01378-MLC-TJB (U.S. District Court for the District of New
`
`Jersey);
`
`•
`
`The Medicines Co. v. Mylan Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-01285
`
`(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois);
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`•
`
`Teva Neuroscience, Inc. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
`
`2:10-cv-05078-CCC-JBC (U.S. District Court for the District of New
`
`Jersey); and
`
`•
`
`Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceutical Inc., et al., Civil Action
`
`No. 3:09-cv-02445-FLW-DEA (United States District Court for the
`
`District of New Jersey).
`
`6.
`
`I have never been disbarred, sanctioned or cited for contempt by any
`
`court or administrative body. I am not currently suspended in any bar or by any
`
`court or administrative body.2
`
`7.
`
`I have never had a court deny my application for admission to
`
`practice.
`
`8.
`
`I am familiar with the subject matter of this proceeding. In addition to
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250 (“the ’250 patent”), 8,399,413 (“the ’413 patent”), and
`
`8,969,302 (“the ’302 patent”) and their prosecution histories, I am familiar with the
`
`technology at issue and with Copaxone, the pharmaceutical product for which the
`
`’250, ’413 and ’302 patents are listed by Teva as covering Copaxone in FDA’s
`
`
`2 In May 2004, during transition to a new law firm, my DC Bar dues were
`
`inadvertently not paid. As soon as I discover the non-payment, I immediately paid
`
`all outstanding dues and was reinstated. I have been a member in good standing
`
`ever since.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`publication, Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalents Evaluations,
`
`commonly referred to as the “Orange Book.” I have been litigating issues
`
`surrounding Copaxone since 2009. I was lead counsel in a long-running case
`
`related to patents related to Copaxone 20 mg/mL product administered daily, Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Civil
`
`Action No. 1:09-cv-08824 (S.D.N.Y.). See also Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`v. Sandoz, Inc., 723 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015). I was also counsel in a litigation related to
`
`markers for measuring the molecular weight of glatiramer acetate, the active
`
`ingredient in Copaxone, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-7246 (S.D.N.Y.). In addition, I am lead
`
`counsel in the pending cases related to Copaxone 40 mg/mL, Teva’s follow-on
`
`Copaxone product.
`
` Teva Pharmaceutical USA Inc., et al. v. Mylan
`
`Pharmaceutical Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-01278 (D. Del.).
`
`9.
`
`In connection with my work on Copaxone litigations, I have become
`
`familiar with the prior art references that are the subject of this proceeding.
`
`10. Given my familiarity with the underlying facts and my litigation
`
`experience with the Federal Rules of Evidence, I have experience and expertise
`
`important to representing Mylan’s interests in this matter.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`11.
`
`I have read and will comply with Office Patent Trial Practice guide
`
`and the Board's Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of 37 C.F.R.
`
`12.
`
`I agree to be subject to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`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).
`
`13.
`
`I have not previously applied for admission pro hac vice before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`14.
`
`I hereby 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 are made with the knowledge
`
`that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or
`
`both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`/s/ Shannon M. Bloodworth
`Shannon M. Bloodworth
`
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing:
`
`1. MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SHANNON M.
`BLOODWORTH, and
`
`2.
`
`DECLARATION OF SHANNON M. BLOODWORTH IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SHANNON M.
`BLOODWORTH
`
`was served electronically via email as follows:
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`Elizabeth Holland
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`eholland@goodwinprocter.com
`
`William James
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`wjames@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Eleanor Yost
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`eyost@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`Dated: October 8, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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
