`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01341
`Patent 8,142,413
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF TARA C. NORGARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Tara C. Norgard due to her
`
`experience representing the Patent Owner in other patent-related matters
`
`concerning the GuideLiner technology and her 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 Tara C. Norgard as backup co-counsel in this matter. Ms. Norgard 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. Ms. Norgard has
`
`
`
`also assisted the lead counsel representing the Patent Owner in this IPR, Derek
`
`Vandenburgh.
`
`
`
`As a result of these experiences, Ms. Norgard has developed a deep
`
`familiarity with the patents at issue and the Petitioner’s validity challenges, and the
`
`Patent Owner wishes to have Ms. Norgard 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 Ms. Norgard 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), Mr. 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. Ms.
`
`Norgard 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 Tara C. Norgard (Exhibit 2217), filed herewith.
`
`In the Declaration of Tara C. Norgard (Ex. 2217), Ms. Norgard attests that
`
`she 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. Ms. Norgard further attests
`
`that she 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 Tara C. Norgard and respectfully requests that the Board grant this
`
`motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 July 9, 2021 a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Tara C.
`
`Norgard, along with the accompanying Exhibit 2217, 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)
`
`