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 MICHAEL N. KENNEDY UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`DC: 04285544
`
`
`
`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 MICHAEL N. KENNEDY UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`DC: 04285544
`
`
`
`I'PR2017-00203
`
`1.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 Michael N.
`
`Kennedy pro lmc vice in this proceeding. Counsei 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 exampie, where the lead counsei
`
`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.” The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of Michael N.
`
`Kennedy in Support of Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`
`(“Kennedy Declaration”), establish good cause to admit Mr. Kennedy pro hac vice
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`1.
`
`Lead counsel, Jessica L. Parezo, is a registered practitioner.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`
`2.
`
`Counsei, Michael N. Kennedy, is an experienced litigating attorney
`
`with over ten years in private iaw practice. Kennedy Decl. at it 9. Mr. Kennedy has
`
`substantial experience with bench trials, jury trials, and Markman hearings and has
`
`been counsei in over twenty patent infringement matters. Id. Mr. Kennedy is a
`
`member in good standing of the New York State Bar and the District of Columbia
`
`Bar. Id. at it 2. He is also admitted to practice in the United States District Court for
`
`the Southern District of New York, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit, and United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Id. He has no
`
`suspensions or disbarments from practice, nor any application for admission to
`
`practice denied, nor any sanctions or contempt citations. Id. at 'li‘ll 36.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Kennedy was admitted to practice before this Board pro hac vice
`
`in 1PR2015-01776,
`
`IPR2015-01780, and IPR2015-01785. See Coalition for
`
`Afiordable Drugs X, LLC v. Anacor Pharms., Inc, IPR2015~01776, IPR2015-
`
`01780, and IPR2015»01785, Paper No. 42 (P.T.A.B. June 29, 2016); Kennedy
`
`Decl. at it 8. Mr. Kennedy was also 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. 28 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8,
`
`2016); Kennedy Deci. at ll 8.
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Kennedy has familiarity with the subject matter and patent at
`
`issue in this proceeding, US. Patent No. 6,649,180 (“the ’180 Patent”), including
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`
`its prosecution history and the scientific field to which the ’180 Patent
`
`is
`
`addressed. Kennedy DecI. at ii 10. Mr. Kennedy is one of the counsel of record for
`
`Patent Owner in co-pending district court litigation concerning the "180 Patent. His
`
`extensive involvement in. the (Io—pending litigation required developing a thorough
`
`understanding of the patent at
`
`issue in this proceeding,
`
`the prior art, and the
`
`relevant scientific field. [(1.
`
`In August 2016, he presented argument for Patent
`
`Owner at the Markman hearing in the district court litigation. Id.
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Kennedy has read and will compiy 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 he agrees to 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
`
`CPR. § 11.19(a).1d. at it'll 6-7.
`
`III. Anaiysis
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above, and contained in the
`
`Kennedy Declaration, establish that there is good cause to admit Mr. Kennedy pro
`
`hac vice in this proceeding, under 37 CER. § 42.10. Lead counsel is a registered
`
`practitioner, Mr. Kennedy is an experienced litigating attorney, and Mr. Kennedy
`
`has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00203
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Michael N. Kennedy pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Date: May 31, 201.7
`
`Andrea G. Rerster
`
`Registration No.: 36,253
`Scott E. Kamholz
`
`Registration No.: 48,543
`COVINGTGN & BURLING LLP
`
`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, KOLASCI—I & BIRCH, LLP
`
`8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100 East
`
`Falls Church, VA 22042
`(703) 205-8000
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 3‘ist day of May
`
`2017, the foregoing Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Admission Pro Han
`
`Vice of Michael. N. Kennedy Under 37 CER. § 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 I). Clinger
`Miranda C. Rogers
`Mylan-WC-IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`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
