Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`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
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c)
`
`
`Patent 8,791,154
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`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
`__________________
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Board’s Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response,
`
`which authorizes the parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission, Paper 4 at
`
`2, Patent Owner Alcon Research, Ltd., submits the following motion for admission
`
`pro hac vice of Christopher J. Mandernach of Williams & Connolly LLP, 725
`
`Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005 in the above-captioned matter.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which provides 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 Unified Patents Order requires that a pro hac vice motion “[c]ontain a
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding.” Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`Vice Admission – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 at 3. A motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission should also be accompanied by an affidavit of the
`
`individual seeking to appear attesting to the following:
`
`ii.
`
`i. Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`District of Columbia;
`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;
`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.;
`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.
`
`Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission – 37 C.F.R. § 42.10,
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 at 3.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Affidavit of Mr.
`
`Mandernach (Ex. 2002) submitted herewith, Patent Owner requests the pro hac
`
`vice admission of Christopher J. Mandernach in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David M. Krinsky (Reg. No. 72,339),
`
`and back-up counsel, Thomas S. Fletcher (Reg. No. 72,383), are
`
`registered practitioners before the Board.
`
`2. Mr. Mandernach is an experienced litigation attorney. Mr.
`
`Mandernach has more than 7 years of patent litigation experience.
`
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 1.
`
`3. Mr. Mandernach has established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. As detailed below, Mr. Mandernach is trial
`
`counsel to Patent Owner’s related proceeding in which the ’154 patent
`
`is at issue. Ex. 2002 ¶ 10.
`
`4. Mr. Mandernach is a member in good standing of the bars of the State
`
`of Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Ex. 2002 ¶ 3.
`
`5. Mr. Mandernach has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. Ex. 2002 ¶ 4.
`
`6.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied Mr. Mandernach’s
`
`application for admission to practice before it. Ex. 2002 ¶ 5.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or
`
`7.
`
`contempt citations on Mr. Mandernach. Ex. 2002 ¶ 6.
`
`8. Mr. Mandernach 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. Ex. 2002 ¶ 7.
`
`9. Mr. Mandernach understands that he 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.
`
`§ 11.19(a). Ex. 2002 ¶ 8.
`
`10. Mr. Mandernach has applied to appear pro hac vice in 3 other
`
`proceeding before the Office in the last (3) years: (1) Apotex Corp. v.
`
`Alcon Research, Ltd., IPR2013-00428, 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; and (3) Apotex Corp. v. Alcon
`
`Research, Ltd., IPR2013-00430, challenging U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,338,941. Ex. 2002 ¶ 9.
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF MR. MANDERNACH IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`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.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`§ 42.10(c). Patent Owner’s lead counsel, David M. Krinsky, and back-up counsel,
`
`Thomas S. Fletcher, are registered practitioners before the Board. Based on the
`
`facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Mandernach’s affidavit, good cause
`
`exists to admit Mr. Mandernach pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`As set forth in his affidavit, Mr. Mandernach is an experienced litigator with
`
`more than 7 years of patent litigation experience. Ex. 2002 ¶ 1. Moreover, Mr.
`
`Mandernach has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding, as he represents Patent Owner in federal district court litigation
`
`concerning the patent at issue here. Mr. Mandernach is currently counsel for
`
`Patent Owner in litigation against other generic pharmaceutical companies, in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in which the same patent is at
`
`issue: Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Ltd, and Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-1159-SLR-SRF (D. Del.).
`
`Moreover, admission of Mr. Mandernach pro hac vice will avoid
`
`unnecessary expense and duplication of work for Patent Owner between this and
`
`the district court proceedings identified above. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,720
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (Office’s comment on final rule discussing concerns about
`
`efficiency and costs where a patent owner has already engaged counsel for parallel
`
`district court litigation). In view of Mr. Mandernach’s knowledge of the subject
`
`matter at issue in this proceeding, Patent Owner has a substantial need for Mr.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`Mandernach’s pro hac vice admission and his involvement in the continued
`
`prosecution of this proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that Mr.
`
`Mandernach be admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any fees
`
`associated with this filing to Deposit Account No. 010682.
`
`
`Date: August 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Reg. No. 72,339
`Lead Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-434-5338 (Telephone)
`202-434-5029 (Facsimile)
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00544
`Patent 8,791,154
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`
`Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) was served on August 2, 2016 by
`
`delivering a copy via electronic mail on the following attorneys of record for the
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Michael R. Houston, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 58,486)
`Joseph P. Meara, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 44,932)
`Foley & Lardner LLP, 3000 K St. N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20008
`jmeara-PGP@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Reg. No. 72,339
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`8
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
