`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00136
`Patent RE45,776E
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ALEXANDER S. RINN
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Notice in this case authorizing the parties to file motions for
`
`pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Patent Owner Teleflex hereby
`
`respectfully moves for the pro hac vice admission of Alexander S. Rinn due to his
`
`experience representing the Patent Owner in other patent-related matters
`
`concerning the GuideLiner technology and his familiarity with the technical and
`
`substantive issues involved in this proceeding. The parties have conferred, and the
`
`Petitioner does not oppose this Motion.
`
`In support of this motion, Patent Owner states as follows:
`
`
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice upon a showing of good
`
`cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner and to
`
`any other conditions the Board may impose. 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). A motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission may be granted where a party shows that “counsel is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in the proceeding.” Id.
`
`Good cause exists under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) for the pro hac vice admission
`
`of Alexander S. Rinn as backup co-counsel in this matter. Mr. Rinn has
`
`represented Teleflex in a related patent infringement action in the District of
`
`Minnesota (Civil Action. No. 19-cv-1760 (PJS/TNL), filed July 2, 2019) involving
`
`the same parties and the same patent at issue in this proceeding. Mr. Rinn has also
`
`
`
`assisted the lead counsel representing the Patent Owner in this IPR, Mr.
`
`Vandenburgh.
`
`
`
`As a result of these experiences, Mr. Rinn has developed an intimate
`
`familiarity with the patents at issue and the Petitioner’s validity challenges, and the
`
`Patent Owner wishes to have Mr. Rinn continue representing it in this matter
`
`before the Board.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has invested significant financial resources in the related
`
`proceedings described above, in which Mr. Rinn has served as counsel. If this
`
`motion was denied, the Patent Owner would be prejudiced because it would have
`
`to undertake the burdensome and costly task of educating another attorney
`
`regarding the patent at issue in this proceeding, and the related evidence. The
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board avoid this prejudice and grant
`
`this Motion.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Derek Vandenburgh, a
`
`registered practitioner, will remain as lead counsel in this matter. Mr. Vandenburgh
`
`is a partner at Carlson Caspers, the same law firm that is representing the Patent
`
`Owner in the related federal court action involving the patent at issue here, as well
`
`as the patents at issue in the related instituted inter partes review proceedings. Mr.
`
`Rinn has worked with Mr. Vandenburgh on other similar matters.
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the order in this IPR authorizing motions for pro hac vice and
`
`the requirements of the “Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” Case IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, this Motion is also supported by the
`
`Declaration of Alexander S. Rinn (Exhibit 2216), filed herewith.
`
`In the Declaration of Alexander S. Rinn (Ex. 2216), Mr. Rinn attests that he
`
`has read and will comply with the Patent Office Trial Practice Guide and the
`
`Board’s Rules of Practice set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42. Mr. Rinn further attests that
`
`he agrees to be subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`11.19(a).
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and in view of the Declaration submitted
`
`herewith, Patent Owner submits that good cause exists for the pro hac vice
`
`admission of Alexander S. Rinn and respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 30, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`Registration No. 32,179
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh
` & Lindquist, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 436-9600
`Facsimile: (612) 436-9650
`Email: DVandenburgh@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and the agreement of the parties, the
`
`
`
`undersigned certifies that on October 30, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`Alexander S. Rinn, along with the accompanying Exhibit 2216, was served via
`
`electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Cyrus A. Morton (Reg. No. 44,954)
`Sharon Roberg-Perez (Reg. No. 69,600)
`Christopher A. Pinahs (Reg. No. 76,375)
`William E. Manske (pro hac vice)
`Emily J. Tremblay (pro hac vice)
`Robins Kaplan LLP
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Phone: 349-8500
`Fax: 612-339-4181
`Email: Cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Sroberg-perez@robinskaplan.com
`Email: Cpinahs@robinskaplan.com
`Email: WManske@RobinsKaplan.com
`Email: ETremblay@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ J. Derek Vandenburgh /
`J. Derek Vandenburgh (Lead Counsel)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`