throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`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
`IPR2016-01131
`
`SRMT 2089
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS V. ALLERGAN
`IPR2016-01131
`
`

`

`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket