IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01776
`
`Patent No. 7,582,621
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`
`GEORGE F. PAPPAS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01776
`
`Patent No. 7,582,621
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`
`GEORGE F. PAPPAS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`lPR20l5—01776
`
`1.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, and in accordance with the Board’s Order,
`
`. Paper No. 7 in Case IPR2013—00639, and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition (Paper No. 4), Patent Owner requests that the Board admit George F.
`
`Pappas pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.l0(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. The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of George F. Pappas
`
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Pappas
`
`Declaration”), establish good cause to admit Mr. Pappas pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Lead counsel, Andrea G. Reister, is a registered practitioner.
`
`Counsel, George F. Pappas, is an experienced litigating attorney in his
`
`fortieth year of law practice. Pappas Decl. at ll 10. Mr. Pappas has been litigating
`
`
`
`IPR2015—O1776
`
`patent cases since 1989 and has served as trial counsel
`
`in over sixty patent
`
`infringement cases. Id. Mr. Pappas is a member in good standing of the Maryland
`
`State Bar and the District of Columbia Bar.
`
`Id. at ‘ll 2. He is also admitted to
`
`practice in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
`
`of Columbia Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the
`
`United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Columbia, the United States District Court for the District
`
`of Colorado, and the United States Court of Federal Claims. Id.
`
`3.
`
`On May 27, 2016, Mr. Pappas was admitted to practice before this
`
`Board pro hac Vice in IPR2015—O1537. See Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Bristol—Myers
`
`Squibb Co., IPR2015—01537, Paper No. 22 (P.T.A.B. May 27, 2016); Pappas Decl.
`
`at ll 3.
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Pappas has familiarity with the subject matter and patent at issue
`
`in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 7,582,621 (“the ’62l Patent”), including its
`
`prosecution history, the related U.S. Patent No. 7,767,657, and the scientific field
`
`to which the ’62l Patent is addressed. Pappas Decl. at ‘H11. Mr. Pappas has
`
`worked with Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Patent Owner in this proceeding,
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`and lead counsel to develop the responses to Petitioner’s invalidity challenges. Id.
`
`Specifically, Mr. Pappas was involved with retaining experts and working with
`
`those experts, whose declarations support the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Id. Mr.
`
`Pappas was also involved in developing the strategy relating to Anacor’s Patent
`
`Owner Response.
`
`Id. All of the above activities required developing a thorough
`
`understanding of the patent at
`
`issue in this proceeding,
`
`the prior art, and the
`
`relevant scientific field. Id.
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Pappas has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of the
`
`C.F.R., and he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.100 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id. at ‘W 7-8. Mr. Pappas is contemporaneously submitting pro
`
`hac vice applications on behalf of Patent Owner in the co-pending proceedings
`
`IPR2015—01780 and IPR2015—01785. Id. at ll 9.
`
`III. Analysis
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Pappas Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr. Pappas pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding, under 37 C.F.R. §42.10. Lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, Mr. Pappas is an experienced litigating attorney, and Mr. Pappas has
`
`an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2015—01776
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit George F. Pappas pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: June 30, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`Andrea G. Reister X,
`Registration Nof: 36,253
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2015—01776
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 30th day of June 2016,
`
`the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of George F.
`
`Pappas Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 was served via electronic mail by agreement of
`
`the parties, on the following counsel of record for petitioner.
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`Kathleen E. Ott
`
`Peter A. Gergely
`Ryan James Fletcher
`Brent E. Routman
`
`KerydinIPR@merchantgould.com
`Merchant & Gould PC
`
`V
`
`Dated: June 30, 2016
`
`C/sf “vflréizfiéw 5“ -
` Andrea G. Reis
`r,
`Registration
`0.: 36,253
`
`
`/I
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
