`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper: 75
`Entered: September 19, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC., and AKORN INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2)1,2
`_______________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case.
`2 Cases IPR2017-00576 and IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-
`00596, IPR2017-00579 and IPR2017-00598, IPR2017-00583 and IPR2017-
`00599, IPR2017-00585 and IPR2017-00600, and IPR2017-00586 and
`IPR2017-00601, have respectively been joined with the captioned
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2).
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Michael W. Shore
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`By virtue of assignment from Allergan, Inc. made September 8, 2017,
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“Tribe”) represents itself as the new patent
`owner of each of the patents at issue in these proceedings. Ex. 2085.3 Tribe
`now moves for pro hac vice admission of Michael W. Shore. Paper 67.
`Tribe provides a declaration from Mr. Shore in support of its motion. Ex.
`2089. Petitioners do not oppose Tribe’s motion.
`Based on the facts set forth in the motion and the accompanying
`declaration from Mr. Shore, we conclude that Mr. Shore has sufficient legal
`and technical qualifications to represent Tribe and that there is a need for
`Tribe to have counsel with experience as a litigation attorney in legal matters
`involved in these cases. Accordingly, Tribe has established good cause for
`Mr. Shore’s pro hac vice admission. Mr. Shore will be permitted to appear
`pro hac vice as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Tribe’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Michael
`W. Shore is granted, and Mr. Shore is authorized to represent Tribe as back-
`up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Tribe is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner as lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Shore comply with the Office Patent
`
`
`3 Paper numbers and exhibits refer to those filed in IPR2016-01127. Similar
`papers and exhibits were filed in each of the other cases.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2).
`
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth
`in Title 37, Part 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Shore is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Michael Kane
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`whelan@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`Joseph DePumpo
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`achan@shorechan.com
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
