`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 27
`
`Date: August 16, 2022
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EYE THERAPIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00142 (Patent 8,293,742 B2)
` IPR2022-00146 (Patent 9,259,425 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before JOHN G. NEW, TINA E. HULSE, and ROBERT A. POLLOCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for
`Admission pro hac vice of Robert Frederickson III
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are the same in each of these proceedings.
`We issue one Order to be entered in each proceeding. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style caption unless so authorized.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00142 (Patent 8,293,742 B2)
`IPR2022-00146 (Patent 9,259,425 B2)
`
`On August 5, 2022, Petitioner filed Motions for Admission pro hac
`vice of Robert Frederickson III in the proceedings identified above. Paper
`25. 2 The Motions are supported by the Declaration of Mr. Fredrickson. Ex.
`1044. Petitioner indicates Patent Owner does not oppose the Motions.
`Paper 25, 2.
`Upon review of the record before us, we determine that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met, and that there is good
`cause to admit Mr. Frederickson pro hac vice in the above-identified
`proceedings.
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Admission pro hac vice of
`Robert Frederickson III are granted; Mr. Frederickson is authorized to act
`only as back-up counsel in the above-identified proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in the above-identified
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Frederickson is to comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide3 (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
`
`
`2 For expediency, we cite to papers in IPR2022-00142. Similar papers were
`filed in IPR2022-00146.
`
` 3
`
` Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00142 (Patent 8,293,742 B2)
`IPR2022-00146 (Patent 9,259,425 B2)
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Frederickson 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
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Linnea Cipriano
`Louis Weinstein
`Patrick Pollard
`WINDELS MARX LANE & MITTENDORF, LLP
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`lweinstein@windelsmarx.com
`ppollard@windelsmarx.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Bryan Diner
`Justin Hasford
`Caitlin O’Connell
`Christina Ji-Hye Yang
`FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARRABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`Bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`Justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`Caitlin.oconnell@finnegan.com
`Christina.yang@finnegan.com
`
`
`4 Mr. Frederickson declares that he “will be subject to the USPTO Code of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.101 et seq.” (Ex. 1044
`¶ 12) (emphases added), rather than the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct set forth in §§ 11.101 et seq. We deem this to be harmless error.
`3
`
`