`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`ALCON RESEARCH, LTD
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. 8,791,154
`
`Issue Date: July 29, 2014
`Title: HIGH CONCENTRATION OLOPATADINE
`
`OPHTHALMIC COMPOSITION
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2016-00544
`
`Affidavit of Adam L. Perlman in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`1.
`
`1, Adam L. Perlman, am more than twenty-one years of age, am
`
`competent to present this affidavit, and have personal knowledge of the facts set
`
`forth herein. I have over sixteen years of patent litigation experience.
`
`2.
`
`This affidavit is given in support of the patent owner Alcon Research,
`
`Ltd.’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`
`3.
`
`I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of Maryland
`
`and the District of Columbia.
`
`4.
`
`I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any
`
`court or administrative body.
`
`5.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied my application for
`
`admission to practice before it.
`
`6.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or
`
`contempt citations on me.
`
`7.
`
`I have read and will comply with the Office of Patent Trial Practice
`
`guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that I will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and will be subject to
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § l1.l9(a).
`
`9.
`
`I have applied to appear pro hac vice in eight other proceedings before
`
`the Office in the last (3) years: (1) Apotex Corp. v. Alcon Research Ltd., IPR20l3-
`
`
`
`00428, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,268,299; (2) Apotex Corp. v. Alcon Research
`
`Ltd., IPR2013-00429, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,323,630; (3) Apotex Corp. v.
`
`Alcon Research Ltd., IPR20l3—00430, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,388,941; (4)
`
`Accord Healthcare Inc. et al. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co. et al., IPR20l5—00864,
`
`challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703; (5) Accord Healthcare Inc. et al. v. Daiichi
`
`Sankyo Co. et al., IPR20l5-00865, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325;
`
`(6) Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Company, IPR2016-00237, challenging
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209; (7) Neptune Generics, LLC v. Eli Lilly & Company,
`
`IPR20l6-00240, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209; and (8) Sandoz Inc. v. Eli
`
`Lilly & Company, IPR2016-00318, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209.
`
`10.
`
`I am familiar with the subject matter at issue in the present
`
`proceeding. This familiarity comes from my experience representing Patent
`
`Owners as lead trial counsel in related district court litigation in the District of
`
`Delaware in the following consolidated case: Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson
`
`Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Ltd, and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No.
`
`15-1159-SLR-SRF (D. Del.).
`
`
`
`.
`
` —
`
`Adam L. Perlman
`
`Sworn to and subscribed before me
`
`this 9"‘; day of August, 2016.