`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALCON RESEARCH, LTD.’S MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ALEXANDER S. ZOLAN
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board’s Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Order Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 5, dated April 3, 2017) (hereinafter “Authorizing Order”), and the Board’s
`
`“Order–Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission” in Case IPR2013-00639
`
`(hereinafter “Unified Patents Order”), Patent Owner Alcon Research, Ltd.
`
`(“Alcon”) respectfully requests pro hac vice admission of Alexander S. Zolan in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`The Board is authorized to recognize counsel pro hac vice pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), which provides 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 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 Authorizing Order requires that any motion for pro hac vice admission
`
`be filed in accordance with the Unified Patents Order. See Authorizing Order at 2.
`
`The Unified Patents Order requires that a pro hac vice motion “[c]ontain a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during the proceeding.” Unified Patents Order at 3. A motion for pro
`
`hac vice admission should also be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of
`
`the individuals seeking to appear attesting to the following:
`
`i.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the
`
`District of Columbia;
`
`ii.
`
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`iii. No application for admission to practice before any court or
`
`administrative body ever denied;
`
`iv. No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body;
`
`v.
`
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice
`
`for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`
`vi.
`
`The individual will 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 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`
`vii. All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual has
`
`applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years; and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`viii. Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`Unified Patents Order at 3–4.
`
`
`
`In its Authorizing Order, the Board gave Alcon permission to file motions
`
`for pro hac vice admission. See Authorizing Order at 2. Pursuant to that Order,
`
`Alcon hereby files a motion for pro hac vice admission of Alexander S. Zolan.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Based on the following facts, and supported by the Declaration of Mr. Zolan
`
`(Ex. 2002) submitted herewith, Alcon requests the pro hac vice admission of
`
`Alexander S. Zolan in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`Alcon’s lead counsel, David M. Krinsky, and back-up counsel,
`
`Christopher A. Suarez, are registered practitioners (Krinsky, Reg. No.
`
`72,339); (Suarez, Reg. No. 72,553).
`
`2. Mr. Zolan has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in this proceeding. As detailed below, Mr. Zolan has been trial
`
`counsel to Alcon in various related proceedings in which the claims of
`
`the ’299 patent were at issue. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 10.) Mr. Zolan has worked
`
`directly with Alcon’s expert witnesses on the matters at issue in this
`
`proceeding. (Id.)
`
`3. Mr. Zolan is a member in good standing of the bars of New York and
`
`the District of Columbia. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 3.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`4. Mr. Zolan has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 4.)
`
`5.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever denied Mr. Zolan’s
`
`application for admission to practice before it. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 5.)
`
`6.
`
`No court or administrative body has ever imposed sanctions or
`
`contempt citations on Mr. Zolan. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 6.)
`
`7. Mr. Zolan has read and will comply with the Office of Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in
`
`part 42 of 37 C.F.R. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 7.)
`
`8. Mr. Zolan understands that he will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`and will be subject to disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 11.19(a). (Ex. 2002 ¶ 8.)
`
`9. Mr. Zolan has not applied to appear pro hac vice in any proceedings
`
`before the Office in the last three (3) years. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 9.)
`
`IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`MR. ZOLAN IN THIS PROCEEDING.
`
`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. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c). Alcon’s lead counsel, David M. Krinsky, and back-up counsel,
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`Christopher A. Suarez, are registered practitioners before the Board. Based on the
`
`facts contained herein, as supported by Mr. Zolan’s declaration, good cause exists
`
`to admit Mr. Zolan pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`As set forth in his declaration, Mr. Zolan has established familiarity with the
`
`subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Mr. Zolan represented Alcon in federal
`
`district court litigation concerning the claims of the ’299 patent at issue here. Mr.
`
`Zolan was counsel for Alcon in litigation against other generic pharmaceutical
`
`companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in which the ’299
`
`patent was at issue: Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. & Mylan
`
`Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01332 (SLR); Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Wockhardt Ltd.,
`
`Wockhardt Bio AG, & Wockhardt USA, LLC, No. 1:13-cv-02040 (SLR); and Alcon
`
`Research, Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-00647 (SLR). In
`
`addition, Mr. Zolan worked with the fact and expert witnesses in those district
`
`court cases.
`
`Mr. Zolan thus has experience litigating the precise subject matter raised in
`
`Petitioner’s inter partes petition. As trial counsel for Alcon, Mr. Zolan was
`
`actively involved in all aspects of its district court litigation, including Alcon’s
`
`factual investigation and development concerning the claims of the ’299 patent
`
`being challenged in this proceeding. In view of Mr. Zolan’s knowledge of the
`
`precise subject matter at issue in this proceeding, and in view of the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`
`interrelatedness of this proceeding and the district court litigation, admission of
`
`Mr. Zolan pro hac vice will avoid unnecessary expense and duplication of work for
`
`Alcon between this and the district court proceedings identified above. See 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48,680, 48,720 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Office’s comment on final rule discussing
`
`concerns about efficiency and costs where a patent owner has already engaged
`
`counsel for parallel district court litigation). In addition, admission of Mr. Zolan
`
`pro hac vice will enable him to participate in drafting the declarations and
`
`defending the depositions of the Alcon witnesses with whom he has already
`
`worked. For these reasons, Alcon has a substantial need for Mr. Zolan’s pro hac
`
`vice admission and his involvement in the continued prosecution of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Alcon respectfully requests that Mr. Zolan be
`
`admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is hereby authorized to charge any fees
`
`associated with this filing to Deposit Account No. 010682.
`
`Dated: October 16, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Reg. No. 72,339
`Lead Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-434-5338 (Telephone)
`202-434-5029 (Facsimile)
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01053
`
`Patent 8,268,299
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing “ALCON RESEARCH,
`
`LTD.’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ALEXANDER S.
`
`ZOLAN PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)” was served on October 16, 2017,
`
`via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Michael R. Houston
`Joseph P. Meara
`James P. McParland
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`mhouston@foley.com
`jmeara-pgp@foley.com
`jmcparland@foley.com
`ARG-travatanZ@foley.com
`
`Tyler C. Liu
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`tliu@agpharm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David M. Krinsky/
`David M. Krinsky
`Reg. No. 72,339
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 16, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`