`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper 33
`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
`
`