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 IPR2015-01103
`
`PATENT NO. 6,315,720
`
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SADAF R. ABDULLAH
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`VICE ADMISSION OF SADAF R. ABDULLAH AS BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0001
`CFAD VI v. CELGENE
`IPR2015-01103
`
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC,
`
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION,
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`___________________
`
`CASE IPR2015-01103
`
`PATENT NO. 6,315,720
`
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF SADAF R. ABDULLAH
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`VICE ADMISSION OF SADAF R. ABDULLAH AS BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0001
`CFAD VI v. CELGENE
`IPR2015-01103
`
`
`
`I, Sadaf R. Abdullah, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a member of good standing with the Texas State Bar (2014) (Bar
`
`No. 24093500), New York State Bar (2010) (Bar No. 4781225), and the
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bar (2006) (Bar No. 666865). I am admitted to
`
`practice in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`2.
`
`I have applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office in one other
`
`proceeding within the last three years. On February 19, 2016, I applied to appear
`
`pro hac vice in Coalition for Affordable Drugs II LLC v. Cosmo Technologies
`
`LTD., IPR2015-00988, and that application was granted on March 1, 2016 (see
`
`IPR2015-00988, Paper 26).
`
`3.
`
`I have never been disbarred or suspended from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`4.
`
`I have never had any sanctions or contempt citations imposed on me
`
`from any court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`I have never been denied any application for admission to practice
`
`before any court or administrative body.
`
`6.
`
`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 37 C.F.R. § 42 et.
`
`seq.
`
`
`
`1
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0002
`
`
`
`7.
`
`I agree 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).
`
`8.
`
`CFAD’s lead counsel in this proceeding, Ms. Sarah Spires, is a
`
`Partner at Skiermont Derby LLP, and is a registered patent practitioner. She is
`
`expected to take maternity leave in the next several months.
`
`9.
`
`I am an experienced patent litigation attorney with over 9 years of
`
`litigation experience, including 9 years of experience litigating pharmaceutical-
`
`related patent cases, including cases where the patentability of claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 was or is at issue. This experience includes serving as
`
`counsel (including at trial) in the following representative pharmaceutical patent
`
`matters:
`
` Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Actavis LLC et al., C.A. No. 2:13-
`
`cv-01028-SDW-MCA (District of New Jersey);
`
` Enzo Life Sciences Inc. v. Becton Dickson and Company et al., C.A. No.
`
`1:12-cv-00275-LPS (District of Delaware);
`
` Somaxon Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., C.A. No.
`
`1:11-cv-00402 (District of Delaware);
`
` Warner Chilcott Company et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., C.A. No.
`
`1:08-cv-00627-LPS (District of Delaware);
`
`
`
`2
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0003
`
`
`
` Abbott GmbH & Co., KG et al v. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc., C.A. No.
`
`4:09-cv-11340 (District of Massachusetts);
`
` Apotex Inc. v. Cephalon Inc. et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-02768 (Eastern District
`
`of Pennsylvania)
`
` Mitsubishi Chemical Corp., et al. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., C.A. No. 1:07-
`
`cv-11614 (Southern District of New York)
`
` Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma Inc., C.A. No. 1:03-cv-
`
`00477-SLR (District of Delaware)
`
` Coalition for Affordable Drugs II LLC v. Cosmo Technologies LTD.,
`
`IPR2015-00988
`
`10.
`
`I have established deep familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. In addition to my work on the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding described in the following paragraphs, I am counsel in litigation against
`
`Celgene (Patent Owner) in Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp., C.A.
`
`No. 13-cv-01644-RGD (District of Delaware) (currently on appeal to the Federal
`
`Circuit; Case No. 2015-1962). Celgene’s REMS distribution program that is the
`
`subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 (“’720 Patent”) is relevant to the
`
`Andrulis.
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the ’720 Patent and its prosecution
`
`history.
`
`
`
`3
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0004
`
`
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the Petition and supporting materials.
`
`I have reviewed and analyzed the Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`and the Decision regarding the Institution of Inter Partes Review.
`
`14. On behalf of CFAD, I worked with the expert (Jeffrey Fudin) in
`
`preparation for his deposition regarding his declaration in support of CFAD’s
`
`Petition, and I attended that deposition.
`
`Under penalty of perjury, I declare the above statements are true and
`
`accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have been warned that willful false
`
`statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. (18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1001.)
`
`DATED this 14th day of March, 2016.
`
`By: /s/ Sadaf R. Abdullah _
`Sadaf R. Abdullah
`(TX Bar No. 24093500)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800W
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Phone: (214) 978-6600
`Fax: (214) 978-6601
`sabdullah@skiermontderby.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1082 - 0005
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
