`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALSINC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC., and AKORN INC., !
`Petitioners,
`
`Vv.
`
`ALLERGAN,INC.,
`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)
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SHORE IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MICHAEL W. SHORE UNDER37 C.F.R.§ 42.10(c)
`
`' 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. The word-for-word
`identical paperis filed in each proceeding identified in the caption pursuantto the
`Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper10).
`
`SRMT 2089
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01130
`
`SRMT 2089
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01130
`
`
`
`I, Michael W.Shore, declare as follows:
`
`1. 1am more than twenty-one years of age, competentto present this affidavit, and
`
`have personal knowledge ofthe facts set forth herein.
`
`2. This affidavit is given in support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission of Michael W. Shore.
`
`3. lam a partnerat the law firm of Shore Chan DePumpo LLP.
`
`4. | have been practicing law since 1990 and have extensive experiencelitigating
`
`patent infringementcases in many different courts across the United States.
`
`5. I have beenlitigating patent cases for nineteen years.
`
`6. My experiencein patentlitigation matters includes being lead counselintrial,
`
`arguing multiple Markman hearings, and manyother patent-related hearings
`
`concerning various issues, such as validity and infringement.
`
`I am a memberin good standing of the Bar of Texas (admitted 1990), as well as
`
`the following Federal Courts: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Court for the
`
`Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas,
`
`U.S District Court for New Mexico, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Arkansas, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
`
`US. District Court for the Central District of California, U.S. District Court for
`
`
`
`the Southern District of California, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for
`
`the Northern District of Florida, U.S. District Court for the District of
`
`Massachusetts, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
`
`U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
`
`7. I have never been suspendedordisbarred from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`8. No court or administrative body has ever denied my application for admission
`
`to practice beforeit.
`
`9. No court or administrative body has imposed sanctions or contemptcitations
`
`related to my conduct in my 26-yearlegal career other than one instance where I was
`
`instructed not to send opposing counsel emails for a limited period during a hotly
`
`contested trial due to the Court’s belief that prior emails were not professional in
`
`tone. I do not believe this instruction qualifies as a “sanction” but include this
`
`disclosure nonetheless. If this incident is of concern to the Board, I am willing to
`
`provide a copy of the emails and thetranscript of the Court’s instruction duringtrial.
`
`Atthe end ofthe trial, my client was the party awarded fees due to the misconduct of
`
`the opposing counsel.
`
`10. I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`
`the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in in 37 C.F.R. § 42.
`
`
`
`11. I understandthat I will be subject to the USPTO Codeof Professional
`
`Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`12. I have not applied to appearpro hac vice in any other proceedings before the
`
`Office in the last three years.
`
`13. I currently represent Patent Owner, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, in other patent
`
`matters and asaresult have specialized knowledge oftribal sovereign immunity,
`
`whichis a subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`14, I have also represented other sovereigns, such as the University of Florida
`
`Research Foundation, Inc., which gives me unique and specialized knowledge
`
`concerning the application oftribal sovereign immunity in interpartes review.
`
`15. I am familiar with the subject matter of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,685,930, 8,629,111,
`
`8,642,556, 8,633,162, 8,648,048, and 9,248,191 that at issue in this proceeding,
`
`including their prosecution histories.
`
`16. I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledgeare true
`
`and further that all statements herein are made with knowledgethat willful false
`
`statements andthe like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
`
`Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2017
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`fan DePumpo LLP
`
`mshore@shorechan.com
`
`