UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF ROBERT V. CERWINSKI
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559 B2
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE
`ADMISSION OF ROBERT V. CERWINSKI
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. respectfully request
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559 B2
`
`
`
`
`the pro hac vice admission of Robert V. Cerwinski in this proceeding, IPR2016-
`
`00829, U.S. Patent No. 9,095,559 B2 (“the ’559patent”), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(c). Patent Owner does not oppose this motion.
`
`I.
`
`THE REQUEST IS TIMELY
`
`As stated in the Board’s April 8, 2016, Notice of Filing Date, any motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission must be filed in accordance with the guidance specified in
`
`the “Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission,” entered in Case
`
`IPR2013-00639 (Paper 7). (“PHV Admission Order”). According to that
`
`guidance, pro hac vice motions can be filed no sooner than (21) days after service
`
`of the Petition. This pro hac vice motion is filed more than 21 days after the
`
`service of the Petition and is therefore timely.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`As required by the PHV Admission Order, the following statement of facts
`
`shows that there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Cerwinski pro hac
`
`vice. An affidavit by Mr. Cerwinski, containing the required statements and
`
`information, is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1024.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559
`Elizabeth J. Holland, lead counsel for Petitioners Lupin Ltd. and
`
`1.
`
`Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in this proceeding, is a registered practitioner holding
`
`Registration No. 47,657.
`
`2.
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman, back-up counsel for Petitioners Lupin Ltd.
`
`and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in this proceeding, is a registered practitioner
`
`holding registration No. 53,179.
`
`3. Mr. Cerwinski is a partner with Goodwin Procter LLP.
`
`4. Mr. Cerwinski is an experienced litigating attorney. Mr. Cerwinski
`
`has been litigating patent cases for nearly nineteen years. Mr. Cerwinski has been
`
`practicing law since 1997 and has extensive experience litigating patent
`
`infringement cases in many different district courts across the United States.
`
`5. Mr. Cerwinski’s experience in patent litigation matters includes patent
`
`jury trials, including opening statements, closing arguments, presentation of non-
`
`expert and expert-testimony, arguing Markman hearings, patent summary
`
`judgment proceedings, and other patent-related hearings and pleadings concerning,
`
`inter alia, patent validity and infringement issues. Mr. Cerwinski has also
`
`represented clients’ appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`resulting from cases tried by Mr. Cerwinski and in other cases.
`
`6. Mr. Cerwinski has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding. Specifically, Mr. Cerwinski represents that he has
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559
`reviewed the Petition and accompanying exhibits filed in this matter and all other
`
`papers associated with this proceeding. As part of this proceeding, Mr. Cerwinski
`
`has studied the ’559 patent. Mr. Cerwinski is also counsel of record in litigation in
`
`which the ’559 patent, as well as patents related to the ’559 patent, and other
`
`patents owned by Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. related to methods of using glyceryl
`
`tri-[4-phenylbutyrate] to treat subjects with urea cycle disorders are being asserted.
`
`Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 1-15-cv-07624, 1-16-cv-04438(D.N.J.)
`
`(currently stayed). He therefore has extensive knowledge of the ’559 patent and of
`
`the cited prior art.
`
`7. Mr. Cerwinski is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of
`
`New York.
`
`8. Mr. Cerwinski has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body.
`
`9.
`
`No application of Mr. Cerwinski for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied.
`
`10. No sanctions or contempt citations have been imposed against Mr.
`
`Cerwinski by any court or Administrative Body.
`
`
`
`11. Mr. Cerwinski 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 42of 37
`
`C.F.R.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559
`12. Mr. Cerwinski understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code
`
`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).
`
`13. Mr. Cerwinski has applied to appear pro hac vice in the following
`
`proceedings before the Office in the last three years: IPR2015-01566 (granted),
`
`IPR2015-01571 (action terminated before ruling), IPR2015-01572 (action
`
`terminated before ruling), IPR2015-01570 (action terminated before ruling),
`
`IPR2015-01733 (action terminated before ruling), and IPR2015-01744 (action
`
`terminated before ruling), and IPR2016-01614 (pending).
`
`14. This motion was filed no sooner than 21 days after service of the
`
`Petition in this proceeding, which occurred on April 1, 2016.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Robert V. Cerwinski pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth J. Holland/
`Elizabeth J. Holland (Reg. No. 47,657)
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman (Reg. No.
`53,179)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`(212) 813-8800 (telephone)
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559
`
`(212) 355-3333 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00829
`Patent 9,095,559
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC
`
`VICE ADMISSION OF ROBERT V. CERWINSKI and Exhibit 1024 referenced
`
`herein (AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT V. CERWINSKI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`
`FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION) were served electronically via email on
`
`December 22, 2016 on the following:
`
`James B. Monroe (lead counsel, Reg. No. 33,971)
`Maureen D. Queler (backup counsel, Reg. No. 61,879)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`James.monroe@finnegan.com
`Maureen.queler@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`Lauren L. Stevens, Ph.D (backup counsel, Reg. No. 36,691)
`Horizon Pharma USA, Inc.
`lstevens@horizonpharma.com
`
`
`
`Matthew Phillips (backup counsel, Reg. No. 43,403)
`Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 22, 2016
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
