Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: December 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
` IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JOHN G. NEW, and
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Admission pro hac vice of
`Victoria Reines, Daniel Reisner, Matthew M. Wilk, and Jeremy Cobb
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order applies to the above-listed proceedings. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: December 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
` IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, JOHN G. NEW, and
`SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motions for Admission pro hac vice of
`Victoria Reines, Daniel Reisner, Matthew M. Wilk, and Jeremy Cobb
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`1 This Order applies to the above-listed proceedings. We exercise our
`discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Patent Owner”) has filed motions
`for admission pro hac vice of Victoria Reines, Daniel Reisner, Matthew M.
`Wilk, and Jeremy Cobb in the proceedings listed above. Papers 26–29
`(collectively, the “Motions”). 2 Patent Owner also filed supporting
`declarations from Ms. Reines, Mr. Reisner, Mr. Wilk, and Mr. Cobb.
`Ex. 2044–2047. Patent Owner states that the Motions are unopposed.
`See Paper 26, 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. 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 these proceedings. See Paper 3, 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”)).
`
`Victoria Reines
`1.
`The lead counsel for Petitioner in these proceedings, Deborah E.
`Fishman, is a registered practitioner. Mot. 2. In the Motions, Petitioner
`states there is good cause for the Board to recognize Ms. Reines pro hac vice
`during these proceedings because counsel for Petitioner have “worked
`
`
`2 All citations are to IPR2021-00880 and the ’069 patent, with the
`understanding that IPR2021-00881 includes papers having substantially
`the same substantive content.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`closely with Ms. Reines since they became involved in these proceedings,
`and will continue to do so” and because “Ms. Reines has significant
`familiarity with the subject matter in this proceeding and has substantive
`knowledge of the patent-at-issue (Patent 9,669,069 B2, the “’069 patent”) by
`virtue of her preparation for this proceeding.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 2004
`¶ 10). Petitioner further states that Ms. Reines has conducted a detailed
`review of the ’069 patent, the relevant prior art, and the prosecution history
`and related patents, and has spent a significant amount of time since March
`2020 working on issues related to the ’069 Patent and Patent Owner’s
`commercial product, Eylea®. Id. at 3. Petitioner states that Ms. Reines is a
`patent litigation attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`matter at issue in the proceeding. Id.
`Ms. Reines attests, inter alia, that she has “significant familiarity with
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding and have substantive
`knowledge of the patent at issue … by virtue of my preparation for this
`proceeding.” Ex. 2044, 2. Ms. Reines further declares that she “was
`substantively involved in the preparation of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response.” Id. Ms. Reines’ Declaration also complies with our
`requirements for admission pro hac vice. See Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3–
`4.
`
`
`
`Daniel Reisner
`2.
`Lead counsel for Petitioner in these proceedings, Deborah E. Fishman,
`is a registered practitioner. Mot. 2. In the Motions, Petitioner states there is
`good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Reisner pro hac vice during these
`proceedings because counsel for Petitioner have “worked closely with
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`Mr. Reisner since they became involved in these proceedings, and will
`continue to do so” and because “Mr. Reisner has significant familiarity with
`the subject matter in this proceeding and has substantive knowledge of the
`[’069 patent] by virtue of his preparation for this proceeding.” Id. at 2–3
`(citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 10). Petitioner further states that Mr. Reisner has
`conducted a detailed review of the ’069 patent, the relevant prior art, and the
`prosecution history and related patents, and has spent a significant amount of
`time since March 2020 working on issues related to the ’069 Patent and
`Patent Owner’s commercial product, Eylea®. Id. at 3. Petitioner states that
`Mr. Reisner is a patent litigation attorney and has an established familiarity
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Id.
`Mr. Resiner attests, inter alia, that he has “significant familiarity with
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding and have substantive
`knowledge of the patent at issue … by virtue of my preparation for this
`proceeding.” Ex. 2045, 2. Mr. Reisner further declares that he “was
`substantively involved in the preparation of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response.” Id. Mr. Reisner’s Declaration also complies with our
`requirements for admission pro hac vice. See Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3–
`4.
`
`
`
`3. Matthew M. Wilk
`The lead counsel for Petitioner in these proceedings, Deborah E.
`Fishman, is a registered practitioner. Mot. 2. In the Motions, Petitioner
`states there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Wilk pro hac vice
`during these proceedings because counsel for Petitioner have “worked
`closely with Mr. Wilk since they became involved in these proceedings, and
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`will continue to do so” and because “Mr. Wilk has significant familiarity
`with the subject matter in this proceeding and has substantive knowledge of
`the [’069 patent] by virtue of his preparation for this proceeding.” Id. at 2–3
`(citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 10). Petitioner further states that Mr. Wilk has conducted
`a detailed review of the ’069 patent, the relevant prior art, and the
`prosecution history and related patents, and has spent a significant amount of
`time since March 2020 working on issues related to the ’069 Patent and
`Patent Owner’s commercial product, Eylea®. Id. at 3. Petitioner states that
`Mr. Wilk is a patent litigation attorney and has an established familiarity
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Id.
`Mr. Wilk attests, inter alia, that he has “significant familiarity with
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding and have substantive
`knowledge of the patent at issue … by virtue of my preparation for this
`proceeding.” Ex. 2046, 2. Mr. Wilk further declares that he “was
`substantively involved in the preparation of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`Response.” Id. Mr. Wilk’s Declaration also complies with our requirements
`for admission pro hac vice. See Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3–4.
`
`
`
`Jeremy Cobb
`4.
`Lead counsel for Petitioner in these proceedings, Deborah E. Fishman,
`is a registered practitioner. Mot. 2. In the Motions, Petitioner states there is
`good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Cobb pro hac vice during these
`proceedings because counsel for Petitioner have “worked closely with
`Mr. Cobb since they became involved in these proceedings, and will
`continue to do so” and because “Mr. Cobb has significant familiarity with
`the subject matter in this proceeding and has substantive knowledge of the
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`[’069 patent] by virtue of his preparation for this proceeding.” Id. at 2–3
`(citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 10). Petitioner further states that Mr. Cobb has conducted
`a detailed review of the ’069 patent, the relevant prior art, and the
`prosecution history and related patents, and has spent a significant amount of
`time since March 2020 working on issues related to the ’069 Patent and
`Patent Owner’s commercial product, Eylea®. Id. at 3. Petitioner states that
`Mr. Cobb is a patent litigation attorney and has an established familiarity
`with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. Id.
`Mr. Cobb attests, inter alia, that he has “significant familiarity with
`the subject matter at issue in this proceeding and have substantive
`knowledge of the patent at issue … by virtue of my preparation for this
`proceeding.” Ex. 2047, 3. Mr. Cobb further declares that he has “also
`worked with Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Diana Do” and “was substantively
`involved in the preparation of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response.” Id.
`at 3–4. Mr. Cobb’s Declaration also complies with our requirements for
`admission pro hac vice. See Unified Patents, Paper 7 at 3–4.
`
`
`
`Summary
`5.
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met, and that there is good
`cause to admit Ms. Reines, Mr. Reisner, Mr. Wilk, and Mr. Cobb pro hac
`vice.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Victoria
`Reines are granted and Ms. Reines is authorized to represent Patent Owner
`as back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Daniel Reisner are granted and Mr. Reisner is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Matthew M. Wilk are granted and Mr. Wilk is authorized to represent
`Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`of Jeremy Cobb are granted and Mr. Cobb is authorized to represent Patent
`Owner as back-up counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a registered practitioner will continue to
`represent Patent Owner as lead counsel in the above-listed proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Reines, Mr. Reisner, Mr. Wilk, and
`Mr. Cobb shall comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as
`updated by the Consolidated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (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 that Ms. Reines, Mr. Reisner, Mr. Wilk,
`and Mr. Cobb are subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and to the USPTO’s disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William Rakoczy
`Neil McLaughlin
`Pal Molino
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com
`nmclaughlin@rmmslegal.com
`paul@rmmslegal.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Deborah Fishman
`Alice Sin Yu Ho
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`deborah.fishman@kayescholer.com
`alice.ho@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
