Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 16
`Entered: August 13, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KVK-TECH, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SHIRE PLC
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00290 (Patent 8,846,100 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00293 (Patent 9,173,857 B2)1
`____________
`
`Before RAMA G. ELLURU, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Thomas Hedemann and Chad Landmon
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`                                                            
`1 This Decision addresses issues that are the same in the above-identified
`proceedings. We exercise our discretion to issue one Decision to be entered in
`each proceeding. The parties are not authorized to use this joint heading and filing
`style in their papers.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00290 (Patent 8,846,100 B2)
`IPR2018-00293 (Patent 9,173,857 B2)
`
`
`On January 9, 2018, Petitioner filed motions for admission pro hac vice of
`Chad Landmon and Thomas Hedemann in the above-identified proceedings
`(collectively “Motions”). Papers 4 and 5.2 Petitioner also filed declarations of Mr.
`Landmon and Mr. Hedemann in support of the Motions (collectively
`“Declarations”). Ex. 1041 and 1042.3 Patent Owner has not filed an opposition to
`the Motions. For the reasons provided below, Petitioner’s Motions are granted.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), 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. In its notice authorizing motions for
`pro hac vice admission, the Board requires a statement of facts showing there is
`good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice and an affidavit or
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear in this proceeding. See Paper 7, 2
`(citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7) (representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac
`Vice Admission”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann have sufficient
`legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in these proceedings, that
`Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann have demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the
`subject matter of these proceedings, and that Petitioner’s intent to be represented
`by counsel with litigation experience is warranted. For example, Mr. Landmon
`and Mr. Hedemann both attest that they “have represented a number of life
`sciences and pharmaceutical companies in patent litigation matters before federal
`
`                                                            
`2 For purposes of expediency, we cite to Papers filed in IPR2018-00290. Similar
`Motions were filed in IPR2018-00293 (Papers 4 and 5).
`3 Similar Declarations were filed in IPR2018-00293 (Ex. 1041 and 1042).
`2 
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00290 (Patent 8,846,100 B2)
`IPR2018-00293 (Patent 9,173,857 B2)
`
`district courts and appellate courts,” and are “intimately familiar” with the patents
`at issue and “with amphetamine salt formations, such as Adderall XR®”. Ex. 1041
`¶ 11; Ex. 1042 ¶ 10. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro
`hac vice admission of Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann. Mr. Landmon and Mr.
`Hedemann will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.10(c).
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of Chad
`Landmon and Thomas Hedemann are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann are
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in the above-identified
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann shall comply
`with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Landmon and Mr. Hedemann shall be
`subject to the Office’s disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file, within seven (7) business
`days of the date of this order, updated mandatory notices in each of the above-
`identified proceedings in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), identifying Mr.
`Landmon and Mr. Hedemann as back-up counsel;
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00290 (Patent 8,846,100 B2)
`IPR2018-00293 (Patent 9,173,857 B2)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file, within seven (7) business
`days of the date of this order, a Power of Attorney for Mr. Landmon and Mr.
`Hedemann in each of the above-identified proceedings in accordance with 37
`C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00290 (Patent 8,846,100 B2)
`IPR2018-00293 (Patent 9,173,857 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jonathan A. Harris
`James T. Evans
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`jharris@axinn.com
`jevans@axinn.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph R. Robinson
`Robert Schaffer
`Dustin B. Weeks
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`joseph.robinson@troutmansanders.com
`robert.schaffer@troutmansanders.com
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`