`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.’S UNOPPOSED
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`WILLIAM A. RAKOCZY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED.
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and the Board’s “Order Authorizing
`
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission,” (see Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron,
`
`LLC, IPR2013-00639, 2013 WL 8700556, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013)),
`
`Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) requests that the Board admit
`
`William A. Rakoczy pro hac vice in this proceeding. Counsel for Mylan have met
`
`and conferred with counsel for Patent Owner and Patent Owner does not oppose this
`
`motion.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS.
`
`2. 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 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.
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). The facts, supported by the attached Declaration of William
`
`A. Rakoczy In Support of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Unopposed Motion for
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`Admission Pro Hac Vice Admission (Ex.1084, Rakoczy Decl.), establish good cause
`
`to admit Mr. Rakoczy pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Lead counsel Paul J. Molino is a registered practitioner before the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
`
`4.
`
`Backup counsel Neil B. McLaughlin is a registered practitioner before
`
`the USPTO.
`
`5. William A. Rakoczy is an experienced litigating attorney. Mr. Rakoczy
`
`has been a litigating attorney for more than fifteen (15) years. (Ex.1084, Rakoczy
`
`Decl. ¶ 1). Mr. Rakoczy has actively litigated patent cases for more than fifteen (15)
`
`years. (Id. ¶ 2). Mr. Rakoczy is a member in good standing with the Illinois State
`
`Bar. (Id. ¶ 3). Mr. Rakoczy is admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the
`
`United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`District of Columbia Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and the United States District
`
`Courts for the Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Wisconsin, District
`
`of Columbia, Western District of Michigan and District of Colorado. (Id. ¶ 3). Mr.
`
`Rakoczy has never been subject to suspensions or disbarments from practice, nor
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`had applications for admission to practice denied, nor been subject to any sanctions
`
`or contempt citations by any court or administrative body. (Id. ¶¶ 3-6).
`
`6. Mr. Rakoczy has familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding and, more specifically, he is familiar with the patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding—U.S. Patent No. 9,669,069 B2 (“the ’069 patent”). (Ex.1084, Rakoczy
`
`Decl. ¶ 7). Mr. Rakoczy is advising Mylan on patent matters relating to the subject
`
`matter claimed in the patent at issue in this proceeding. (Id.). Mr. Rakoczy was
`
`involved in the strategy and drafting of Mylan’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`relevant to the ‘069 patent (“the Petition”) and, as a result, Mr. Rakoczy has become
`
`intimately familiar with the subject matter of the ’069 patent and all prior art raised
`
`in the Petition. (Id.).
`
`7. Mr. Rakoczy has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules for Practice for Trials set forth in C.F.R. Part
`
`42 – Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and he agrees to be
`
`subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
`
`et seq. and to disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19. (Ex.1084, Rakoczy
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 8-9).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`In the last three (3) years Mr. Rakoczy has applied1 to appear pro hac
`
`8.
`
`vice in one (1) other IPR proceeding: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis
`
`Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., IPR2019-01086, Paper 7 (June 6, 2019). (Ex.1084,
`
`Rakoczy Decl. ¶ 10).
`
`III. ANALYSIS.
`
`9.
`
`The facts contained in the Statement of Facts above and the attached
`
`Rakoczy Declaration (Ex.1084) establish that there is good cause to admit Mr.
`
`Rakoczy pro hac vice in this proceeding under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Lead and
`
`backup counsel are registered practitioners, Mr. Rakoczy is an experienced litigating
`
`attorney and Mr. Rakoczy has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION.
`
`10. For the foregoing reasons, Mylan respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit William A. Rakoczy pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Mr. Rakoczy is concurrently seeking pro hac vice admission in Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., IPR2021-00881
`
`(June 18, 2021).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`
`/Paul J. Molino/
`Paul J. Molino (Reg. No. 45,350)
`6 West Hubbard Street
`Suite 500
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone:
`(312) 222-6300
`Facsimile:
`(312) 222-6320
`paul@rmmslegal.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`Dated: June 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Unopposed Motion For Pro Hac Vice Admission Of
`
`William A. Rakoczy Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) was served on June 18, 2021,
`
`via electronic mail by agreement of the parties, to the following counsel for record
`
`of Patent Owners:
`
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, California 94306-3807
`Telephone: 650.319.4519
`Facsimile: 650.319.4573
`Deboarh.Fishman@arnoldporter.com
`RegeneronEyleaIPRs@arnoldporter.com
`
`Amanda K. Antons (Reg. No. 65,236)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`70 West Madison Street | Suite 4200
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4321
`Telephone 312.583.2472
`Amanda.Antons@arnoldporter.com
`
`Alice S. Ho (Lim. Rec. No. L1162)
`Victoria Reines
`Rebecca Neubauer
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
`Washington D.C. 20001
`Tel: 202.942.5000
`Fax: 202.942.5999
`Alice.Ho@arnoldporter.com
`Victoria.Reines@arnoldporter.com
`Rebecca.Neubauer@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00880
`Patent 9,669,069 B2
`Petitioner’s Pro Hac Vice Motion
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`
`/Paul J. Molino/
`Paul J. Molino (Reg. No. 45,350)
`
`2
`
`
`Dated: June 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
