`Filed: November 30, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01102
`
`
`
`Patent No. 6,315,720
`___________________
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF PAUL J. SKIERMONT AS BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Coalition for Affordable Drugs
`
`VI LLC (“CFAD”) hereby respectfully requests that the Board grant admission pro
`
`hac vice to Mr. Paul J. Skiermont to act as back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Background
`
`Counsel for CFAD consulted with counsel for Patent Owner, Celgene
`
`Corporation (“Celgene”), and Celgene agreed it would not oppose the present
`
`motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Skiermont.
`
`On October 27, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”)
`
`instituted inter partes review of Celgene’s U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720. (See Paper
`
`21.) The Board had previously authorized the parties to file motions for pro hac
`
`vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). (See Paper 3 at 2.) Therefore, the
`
`present motion is proper at this time.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts Showing Good Cause for the Present Motion
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) states that:
`
`“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.”
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As explained and attested to in the accompanying Declaration of Paul J.
`
`Skiermont, Mr. Skiermont has an established familiarity of the subject matter at
`
`issue in this inter partes review. (Ex. 1077 ¶¶ 11-18.) Mr. Skiermont is an
`
`experienced patent litigation attorney with specific experience serving as lead or
`
`co-lead trial counsel in cases related to pharmaceutical patents, and has received
`
`awards and recognition related to this work. (Ex. 1077 ¶¶ 9–10.)
`
`Mr. Skiermont is a Member in good standing with the Illinois (2002) and
`
`Texas (2002) State Bars and is admitted to practice in numerous Federal Courts,
`
`including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal and Eighth Circuits; the U.S.
`
`District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western District of Texas; the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the U.S. District Court for the
`
`District of Nebraska; the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado; the U.S.
`
`District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Ohio; and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`New York.(Id. ¶ 1.)
`
`Mr. Skiermont has applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in one
`
`other proceeding within the last three years. (Id. ¶ 2.) On March 3, 2015, Mr.
`
`Skiermont applied to appear pro hac vice in IPR2015-00720, and that application
`
`was granted on August 21, 2015 (see IPR2015-00720, Paper 13). (Ex. 1077 ¶ 2.)
`
`Concurrently with the motion, Petitioner is also filing motions for pro hac vice
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`admission for Mr. Skiermont in IPR2015-01092, IPR2015-01096, and IPR2015-
`
`01103.
`
`Mr. Skiermont has never been disbarred or suspended from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`
`Mr. Skiermont has never had any sanctions or contempt citations imposed on
`
`him from any court or administrative body. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`
`Mr. Skiermont has never been denied any application for admission to
`
`practice before any court or administrative body. (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`CFAD’s lead counsel for this proceeding, Ms. Sarah Spires, is a registered
`
`patent practitioner. (Id. ¶ 8.)
`
`Mr. Skiermont has established deep familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. (Id. ¶¶ 11–18.) Mr. Skiermont has read and analyzed the
`
`Petition and supporting materials, and has read and analyzed U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,315,720 (’720 Patent) as well as its prosecution history. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) Mr.
`
`Skiermont is the attorney from Skiermont Puckett LLP that led and attended all
`
`meetings between his firm and CFAD related to the Petition at issue in this
`
`proceeding (id. ¶ 14), is the attorney from Skiermont Puckett LLP that conducted
`
`his firm’s analysis of the Grounds for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`for the Petition (id. ¶ 15), is the sole attorney from Skiermont Puckett LLP that
`
`directs and supervises the work conducted by the lead and back-up counsel to the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition, all of whom are registered patent practitioners (id. ¶ 16), and is the
`
`attorney that retained and worked with the expert witness (Jeffrey Fudin, R.Ph.,
`
`B.S., Pharm.D., DAAPM, FCCP, FASHP) that submitted a declaration in support
`
`of the Petition (id. ¶ 17).
`
`Mr. Skiermont has also reviewed and analyzed the patent and file history of
`
`U.S Patent No. 6,045,501 (’501 Patent), which shares a common owner and shares
`
`subject matter similar to the ’720 Patent. (Id. ¶ 18.) CFAD filed an IPR Petition
`
`challenging the ’501 Patent (see IPR2015-01092). (Id.) Mr. Skiermont personally
`
`supervised, reviewed and participated in drafting the ’501 IPR Petition, and has
`
`read and analyzed the prior art references in the ’501 IPR Petition. (Id.)
`
`Finally, Mr. Skiermont has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42 et. seq., and has agreed to be subject to the USPTO Rules 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). (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.)
`
`III. Statement of Relief Requested
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant admission pro hac vice to Mr. Skiermont as back-up counsel.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP
`2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, TX 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul J. Skiermont as Back-Up
`
`Counsel, as well as Exhibit 1077 to the Motion: Declaration of Paul J. Skiermont
`
`in Support of Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul
`
`J. Skiermont as Back-Up Counsel, by electronic means on November 30, 2015 at
`
`the following address of record:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`
`Counsel for Petitioner