`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
` Entered: April 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)1
`___________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, ZHENYU YANG, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER,
`and DAVID A. COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Deepa Kannappan
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both proceedings. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`2 This listing of Administrative Patent Judges does not reflect an expanded
`panel under SOP 1 § III.M. This order addresses multiple proceedings that
`collectively involve more than three Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Deepa Kannappan. Paper 23 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).3 Petitioner also filed a
`Declaration of Ms. Kannappan in support of the Motion. Ex. 1041
`(“Declaration”). Petitioner represents that Patent Owner does not oppose the
`Motion. Mot. 1. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is
`granted.
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we 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. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 3, 2 (citing Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013) (representative “Order –
`Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Ms. Kannappan has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding, that Ms.
`Kannappan has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of
`this proceeding, and that Petitioner’s intent to be represented by counsel
`with litigation experience is warranted. Accordingly, Petitioner has
`established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Kannappan. Ms.
`Kannappan will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`3 For purposes of expediency, we cite to the papers filed in IPR2020-00770.
`Petitioner filed similar papers in IPR2021-00406.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`We note that Petitioner has submitted a Power of Attorney in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) for Ms. Kannappan. Paper 22, 1.
`However, Petitioner’s Mandatory Notices do not identify Ms. Kannappan.
`See Paper 21.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Deepa Kannappan in each of the above-captioned proceedings
`is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file updated Mandatory
`Notices identifying Ms. Kannappan as back-up counsel in the above-
`captioned proceedings in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Kannappan is authorized to represent
`Petitioner only as back-up counsel in the above-captioned proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in the above-captioned
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Kannappan is to comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide4 (84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019)),
`and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title
`37, Code of Federal Regulations; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Kannappan is to 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.
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ivor R. Elrifi
`Erik B. Milch
`Deepa Kannappan
`Sanya Sukduang
`Cooley LLP
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`emilch@cooley.com
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`ssukduang@cooley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`George Quillin
`Daniel R. Shelton
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`smaebius@foley.com
`gquillin@foley.com
`dshelton@foley.com
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`United Therapeutics Corp.
`ssnader@unither.com
`
`Douglas Carsten
`Richard Torczon
`Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`4
`
`