`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`Entered: May 10, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SANDOZ INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ACERTA PHARMA B.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-00478
`Patent 10,272,083 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before ULRIKE W. JENKS and RYAN H. FLAX,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Charles B. Klein and Eimeric Reig-Plessis
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00478
`Patent 10,272,083 B2
`
`
`On May 3, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion requesting pro hac vice
`
`admission of Charles B. Klein and Eimeric Reig-Plessis. Paper 6
`
`(“Motion”). Petitioner submitted Declarations from Mr. Klein and
`
`Mr. Reig-Plessis in support of the Motion. Ex. 1044–1045 (“Declarations”).
`
`Petitioner attests that Patent Owner does not oppose the Motion. Motion 2.
`
`For the reasons provided below, we grant Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), we may recognize counsel
`
`pro hac vice during a proceeding upon a showing of good cause. In
`
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`
`moving party to provide 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 the proceeding. See 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”).
`
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`
`Declarations, we conclude that Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis have
`
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding, that Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis have demonstrated
`
`sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter of this
`
`proceeding, that Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis meet all other requirements
`
`for admission pro hac vice. See Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 1–8; Ex. 1045 ¶¶ 1– 8.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis.
`
`We note that Petitioner has filed a Power of Attorney including
`
`Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00478
`Patent 10,272,083 B2
`
`Paper 1. Petitioner has also included a Mandatory Notice in the Petition,
`
`identifying Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis as back-up counsel, as required
`
`by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3). Paper 2.
`
`
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion seeking admission pro hac vice
`
`for Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner continue to have a registered
`
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding, but that
`
`Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis are authorized to act as back-up counsel;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis comply
`
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1
`
`(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 Mr. Klein and Mr. Reig-Plessis are
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00478
`Patent 10,272,083 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jovial Wong
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`jwong@winston.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stanley E. Fisher
`David I. Berl
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`sfisher@wc.com
`dberl@wc.com
`
`4
`
`
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
