Paper _____
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GALDERMA LABORATORIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01778
`U.S. Patent No. 8,603,506
`_______________
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF EVAN DIAMOND
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GALDERMA LABORATORIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01778
`U.S. Patent No. 8,603,506
`_______________
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF EVAN DIAMOND
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(C)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`
`
`US Patent 8,603,506
`IPR2015-01778
`
`
` Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 (c), Patent Owner Galderma Laboratories,
`
`Inc. respectfully moves the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to recognize
`
`counsel Evan Diamond as counsel pro hac vice for purposes of the above-
`
`captioned inter partes review. As stated in the PTAB’s August 27, 2015, Notice of
`
`Filing Date, any motion for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`must be filed in accordance with the guidance specified in the “Order --
`
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner seeks the counsel of Mr. Evan Diamond due to
`
`his experience in patent-related matters and, in particular, due to his familiarity
`
`with the substantive and technical issues involved in this proceeding.
`
`I.
`
`THE TIMING OF FILING
`
`This motion for pro hac vice admission is being filed no sooner than twenty-
`
`one days after service of the Petition. Accordingly, this motion is timely.
`
`II. THIS MOTION IS UNOPPOSED
`
`Patent Owner has conferred with Petitioner regarding the present motion,
`
`and Petitioner has indicated that it would not oppose Patent Owner’s pro hac vice
`
`motion.
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`US Patent 8,603,506
`IPR2015-01778
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THIS MOTION
`
`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. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(c). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Stephen B. Maebius, and backup counsels,
`
`Sunit Talapatra, Michael Houston, and Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr., are all registered
`
`practitioners.
`
`The following statement of facts shows that good cause exists for the PTAB to
`
`recognize Mr. Evan Diamond pro hac vice.
`
`Mr. Diamond is admitted to practice in New York. Mr. Diamond is an
`
`experienced litigation attorney in the fields of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology,
`
`with an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this inter partes
`
`review. He is an associate in the Life Sciences Intellectual Property practice of
`
`Paul Hastings LLP and was a member of the trial team in Research Foundation of
`
`State Univ. of N.Y. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 09-cv-184-LPS (D. Del.); Research
`
`Foundation of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Lupin Ltd. et al., No. 09-cv-483-LPS (D.
`
`Del.); Research Foundation of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Impax Labs. Inc., No. 09-cv-
`
`703-LPS (D. Del.); Research Foundation of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Sandoz Inc., No.
`
`11-cv-162-LPS (D. Del.); and Galderma Laboratories Inc. et al. v. Amneal
`
`Pharms. LLC et al., No. 11-cv-1106-LPS (D. Del.)., which involved the same
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`US Patent 8,603,506
`IPR2015-01778
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Diamond received his J.D. from
`
`Harvard Law School and graduated with a B.A. in Biochemistry from the
`
`University of Pennsylvania and a M.S. in Chemistry in 2004. Mr. Diamond has
`
`read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials, and further understands that he will be subject to the
`
`USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility.
`
`This motion for pro hac vice admission is accompanied by a Declaration of
`
`Mr. Evan Diamond (Exhibit 2001), as required by The Order Authorizing Motion
`
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission in Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 at 3.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner submits that there is good cause under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c) for the Board to recognize Evan Diamond as counsel pro hac vice in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`
`Dated: September 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`4
`
`
`
`US Patent 8,603,506
`IPR2015-01778
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Evan Diamond was served on
`
`counsel of record on September 15, 2015, by filing this document through the
`
`Patent Review Processing System as well as delivering a copy via email to the
`
`counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`WMentlik.ipr@ldlkm.com, MTeschner.ipr@ldlkm.com,
`
`BTomkins.ipr@ldlkm.com, and MFuller.ipr@ldlkm.com.
`
`By: /Stephen B. Maebius/
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Registration No. 35,264
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Dated: September 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4841-5173-0472.1
`
`5
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
