UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01776
`Patent No.: 7,582,621
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`BRENT E. ROUTMAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case No.: IPR2015-01776
`Patent No.: 7,582,621
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF
`BRENT E. ROUTMAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and in accordance with the Board’s “Order –
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in case IPR2013-00639,
`
`Petitioner Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC, requests that the Board admit
`
`Brent E. Routman pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`GOVERNING LAWS, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`Section 42.10(c) provides 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 any other conditions as the Board may
`
`impose.” The Rule provides that a motion relating to counsel who is not a
`
`recognized 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 Board’s August 27, 2015 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition,
`
`Paper No. 4, authorized the parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). The Notice provided pro hac vice motions shall be filed in
`
`accordance with the “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`Case IPR2013-00639. On October 15, 2013, the Board issued an Order, Paper No.
`
`7, in Case IPR2013-00639 that provides the guidelines for admission under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). The Order incorporated changes in the rules, including the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`publication of the Final Rule in 78 Fed. Reg. 20180 adopting new Rules of
`
`Professional Conduct.
`
`The October 15, 2013 Order provides that motions for pro hac vice must
`
`“[c]ontain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding.” The Order further provides
`
`the motion is to be “accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual
`
`seeing to appear attesting to the following:
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear has 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.;
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`vi.
`
`The individual will 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);
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.”
`
`TIME OF FILING
`
`In accordance with the rules, this motion is being filed no sooner than
`
`twenty one (21) days after service of the petition.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`The following facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Brent E.
`
`Routman in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, establish
`
`good cause to recognize Mr. Routman pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner’s lead counsel, Jeffrey D. Blake, is a registered practitioner (Reg.
`
`No. 58,884).
`
`Counsel Brent E. Routman is an experienced litigating attorney. Mr.
`
`Routman is a partner at the law firm of Merchant & Gould P.C. Mr. Routman has
`
`been involved in patent law for more than nineteen (19) years. Routman Decl., ¶ 8.
`
`His experience includes representing a wide range of clients in intellectual property
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`Mr. Routman has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. Mr. Routman has worked with lead counsel in all aspects of
`
`preparing Petitioner’s Petition, the expert declaration filed in support of the
`
`Petition, and all other filings Petitioner has made. Id., ¶ 9. As such, Mr. Routman
`
`has become familiar with U.S. Patent No. 7,582,621 (“the ’621 Patent”) and with
`
`its prosecution file history. Id. He is familiar with the prior art relied upon in
`
`Petitioner’s Petition. He is also familiar with the legal and factual arguments made
`
`by Petitioner and Patent Owner. Id.
`
`Mr. Routman is in good standing and admitted to practice in Minnesota and
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Routman Decl., ¶ 1.
`
`Mr. Routman has had no suspensions or disbarments from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. Id., ¶ 2.
`
`Mr. Routman has never been denied application to practice before any court
`
`or administrative body. Id., ¶ 3.
`
`Mr. Routman has never been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any court
`
`or administrative body. Id., ¶ 4.
`
`Mr. Routman has 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.
`
`Id., ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`Mr. Routman has agreed to be subject to the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office Rules of Professional Conduct, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`11.101 et. seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Id., ¶ 6.
`
`Mr. Routman has previously applied to appear pro hac vice before the Office
`
`in proceeding No. IPR2015-00990, No. IPR2015-01018, No. IPR2015-01076, No.
`
`IPR2015-01093, IP2015-01169. Mr. Routman is also applying concurrently to
`
`appear pro hac vice before the Office in proceeding No. IPR2015-01780 and No.
`
`IPR2015-01785. ¶ 7.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`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.” The “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in
`
`Case IPR2013-00639 clarified the requirements for a motion for pro hac vice
`
`admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621
`
`The above-identified facts and the Routman Declaration establish that there
`
`is good cause to admit Mr. Routman pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Lead counsel, Jeffrey D. Blake, is a registered practitioner. Mr.
`
`Routman is an attorney with over nineteen (19) years of patent experience. Mr.
`
`Routman has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding. Admission of Mr. Routman will further enable Petitioner to be
`
`effectively and efficiently represented before the Board in this proceeding. Mr.
`
`Routman, in turn, will ensure that he follows the rules and guidelines set out by the
`
`Board.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Brent E. Routman to appear pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
` Respectfully submitted,
` MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 17, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Trial No. IPR2015-01776)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jeffrey D. Blake/
` Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
` Registration No. 58,884
` MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
` 191 Peachtree Street N.E.
` Suite 4300
` Atlanta, GA 30303
` jblake@merchantgould.com
`
` ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`6
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
