Paper No. __
`Date Filed: February 2, 2017
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`
`Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited and
`Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Scott K. Reed
`sreed@fchs.com
`212-218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA (USA) LTD., SHANDONG
`LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and ALKERMES CONTROLLED
`THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01096
`U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`HA KUNG WONG UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Date Filed: February 2, 2017
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`
`Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited and
`Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Scott K. Reed
`sreed@fchs.com
`212-218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA (USA) LTD., SHANDONG
`LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and NANJING LUYE
`PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD and ALKERMES CONTROLLED
`THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01096
`U.S. Patent No. 6,667,061
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`HA KUNG WONG UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owners Alkermes Pharma Ireland
`
`Limited and Alkermes Controlled Therapeutics, Inc. (hereinafter, “Alkermes”)
`
`respectfully request the pro hac vice admission of Ha Kung Wong in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`This motion is being filed more than twenty one (21) days after service of
`
`the Petition. Petitioners do not oppose the motion.
`
`II.
`
`THE GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) concerns motions for pro hac vice admission and states
`
`as follows:
`
`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.
`
`1
`
`
`
`The Board has stated that motions for pro hac vice admission under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c) should be filed in accordance with the “Order – Authorizing
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” entered in Case IPR2013-00639 (Paper 7)
`
`(Representative Opinion).
`
`In that Order, the Board stated that motions for pro hac vice admission must
`
`“[c]ontain a statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to
`
`recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding,” and must “[b]e
`
`accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking 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
`
`2
`
`
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part
`
`42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`
`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.”
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Based on the following facts, which are supported by the Declaration of Ha
`
`Kung Wong (Exh. 2010) filed concurrently with this motion, Patent Owners
`
`request that Ha Kung Wong be admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owners’ lead counsel, Scott K. Reed, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 32,433).
`
`2.
`
`Mr. Wong is a partner at the law firm of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper &
`
`Scinto. (Exh. 2010 at ¶ 3.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Wong is an experienced patent litigation attorney. Mr. Wong has
`
`been a patent litigation attorney for more than 17 years. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
`
`Mr. Wong has been litigating patent cases during this entire time
`
`period and has been involved in numerous cases involving patent
`
`validity and infringement in District Courts across the country. (Id.)
`
`He has extensive experience in bench trials. (Id.)
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Wong is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of
`
`New York. He is also admitted to the bars of the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York,
`
`and the United States Court of Federal Claims. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Wong has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id.)
`
`6.
`
`No application of Mr. Wong for admission to practice before any
`
`court or administrative body has ever been denied. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
`
`7.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Wong by any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Wong 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. at ¶ 8.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Wong understands that he will be subject to the Office’s 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). (Id. at ¶ 9.)
`
`10. Mr. Wong has applied to appear and was admitted pro hac vice in
`
`one other proceeding before the Office in the last three years:
`
`IPR2014-00714. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. WONG 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.
`
`§ 42.10(c). Patent Owners’ lead counsel, Scott K. Reed, is a registered
`
`practitioner. Based on the facts set forth in this motion, as supported by Mr.
`
`Wong’s Declaration (Exh. 2010), there is good cause to admit Mr. Wong pro hac
`
`vice in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Wong has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in
`
`this proceeding. (Exh. 2010 at ¶¶ 11-13.) He has been involved consistently and
`
`substantively in this matter since its inception in May 2016. (Id. at ¶ 11.) He has
`
`read in detail and understands the Petition and the challenged patent, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,667,016 (“the ’061 patent”). (Id.) He has also reviewed in detail all the
`
`exhibits relied upon by Petitioners in this proceeding. (Id.) Additionally, Mr.
`5
`
`
`
`Wong has engaged in extensive strategic and substantive discussions regarding this
`
`proceeding with Scott K. Reed, who is the lead counsel for Patent Owners; Justin
`
`Oliver, who is designated as back-up counsel for Patent Owners; and Christina
`
`Schwarz, Melinda R. Roberts, and Una Fan, who are concurrently seeking pro hac
`
`vice admission to appear in this proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Mr. Wong has engaged
`
`in extensive substantive discussions with experts concerning issues relevant to this
`
`proceeding. (Id.)
`
`Thus, Mr. Wong has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding as well as significant litigation experience and expertise.
`
`For these reasons, good cause exists to admit Mr. Wong pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`February 2, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott K. Reed/
`Scott K. Reed (Reg. No. 32,433)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the Patent Owners’ Motion For Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Ha Kung Wong Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 was served on February 2,
`
`2017 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for Petitioners at the following
`
`email address, who consented to electronic service at these addresses in its
`
`Petition:
`
`wmentlik.ipr@lernerdavid.com
`
`pkochanski@lernerdavid.com
`
`tvanbuskirk@lernerdavid.com
`
`nvaleyko@lernerdavid.com
`
`February 2, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott K. Reed/
`Scott K. Reed (Reg. No. 32,433)
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel: (212) 218-2100
`
`Counsel for Patent Owners
`
`7
`
`
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
