UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`QUALICAPS CO., LTD,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-00203
`
`Patent 6,649,180
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`
`PRO HAC VICE OF MEGAN P. KEANE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`DC: (1428:3624
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`QUALICAPS CO., LTD,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2017-00203
`
`Patent 6,649,180
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADMISSION
`
`PRO HAC VICE OF MEGAN P. KEANE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`DC: (1428:3624
`
`
`
`lPR2017-00203
`
`1.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.10, and in accordance with the Board’s Order,
`
`Paper No. 7 in Case IPR2013-00639, and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to
`
`Petition (Paper No. 3), Patent Owner requests that the Board admit Megan P.
`
`Keane pro hac vice in this proceeding. Counsel for Petitioner has informed the
`
`undersigned that Petitioner does not oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`Statement of Facts
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.10(c) states that 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 liac 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.” The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Megan P. Keane
`
`in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (“Keane
`
`Declaration”), establish good cause to admit Ms. Keane pro hac vice in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel, iessica L. Parezo, is a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`
`2.
`
`Counsel, Megan P. Keane, is an experienced litigating attorney with
`
`over seven years in private law practice and has substantial experience with patent
`
`litigation. Keane Decl. at 'li 9. Ms. Keane has been counsel in over twenty patent
`
`infringement matters, inciuding cases pending in various district courts. Id. Ms.
`
`Keane is a member in good standing of the Pennsyivania State Bar and the District
`
`of Coiurnbia Bar. Id. at ‘ll 2. She is also admitted to practice in the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Columbia. Id. She has no suSpensions or disbarments from practice,
`
`nor any application for admission to practice denied, nor any sanctions or contempt
`
`citations. Id. at W 3—5.
`
`3.
`
`Ms. Keane was admitted to practice before this Board pro hac vice in
`
`IPR2016-00458. See Eli Lilly and Company v. The Trustees of The University of
`
`Pennsylvania, IPR2016-00458, Paper No. 42 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016); Keane
`
`Decl. at ‘ll 8.
`
`4.
`
`Ms. Keane has familiarity with the subject matter and patent at issue
`
`in this proceeding, US. Patent No. 6,649,180 (“the ’i80 Patent”), including its
`
`prosecution history and the scientific field to which the ’180 Patent is addressed.
`
`Keane Deci. at il 10. Ms. Keane is advising the Patent Owner regarding the Patent
`
`Owner’s Response to the Petition.
`
`In addition, Ms. Keane is or has been counsel
`
`of record in patent
`
`infringement cases involving pharmaceutical
`
`formulation
`
`
`
`1PR2017-00203
`
`patents. These activities have required deveIOping a thorough understanding of the
`
`patent at issue in this proceeding, the prior art, and the relevant scientific field. 1d.
`
`5.
`
`Ms. Keane also has extensive experience litigating and advising
`
`clients relating to pharmaceutical patents. Specifically, she has experience working
`
`with experts and developing strategy in proceedings before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board relating to other pharmaceutical products. Id. at it 11.
`
`6.
`
`Ms. Keane has read and will comply with the Office Patent Triai
`
`Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practices for Trials set forth in Part 42 of the
`
`C.F.R., and she agrees to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
`
`set forth in 37 ORR. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`
`CPR. § 11.19(a).1d. at W 67.
`
`III. Analysis
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Keane Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Ms. Keane pm [me
`
`vice in this proceeding, under 37 C.F.R. §42.10. Lead counsel
`
`is a registered
`
`practitioner, Ms. Keane is an experienced litigating attorney, and Ms. Keane has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfuily requests that the Board
`
`admit Megan P. Keane pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,fl
`
`
`
`arezo
`Registration No.: 50,286
`Andrea G. Reister
`
`
`
`Registration No.: 36,253
`Scott E. Kamholz
`
`Registration No.: 48,543
`COVINGTON & BURLI'NG LLiJ
`
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`
`MaryAnne Armstrong
`Registration No: 40,069
`Lynde F. Herzbach
`Registration No.: 74,886
`BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`
`Faiis Church, VA 22042
`(703) 205—8000
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`Date: May 31, 2017
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 3lst day of May
`
`2017, the "foregoing Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Admission Pro Hac
`
`Vice of Megan P. Keane Under 37 CPR. § 42.10 was served by electronic mail,
`
`by agreement of the parties, on the following counsel of record for Petitioner.
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`
`David C. Holloway
`Jonathan D. Olinger
`Miranda C. Rogers
`Mylan—WC—IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`
`
`_
`_
`. Pa ezo, Esq.
`Jessica
`Reg. No.: 50,286
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 31, 2017
`
`
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
