`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper: 26
`Entered: January 8, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`RYAN H. FLAX, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FLAX, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`of Kira A. Davis and Daralyn J. Durie
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner filed motions requesting pro hac vice admission of
`Kira A. Davis and Daralyn J. Durie in the above-captioned proceeding.
`Papers 19 and 20 (collectively, “Motions”). Patent Owner also submitted
`Declarations from Attorneys Davis and Durie in support of the Motions.
`Exs. 2060 and 2061 (collectively “Declarations”). Patent Owner represents
`that Petitioner indicated that it did not plan to oppose the Motions, and
`Petitioner has not. Motions 1. For the reasons provided below, the Motions
`are granted.
`In accordance with 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
`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, 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 Motions and the accompanying
`Declarations, we conclude that Attorneys Davis and Durie each have
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this
`proceeding, that Attorneys Davis and Durie have each demonstrated
`sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter of this
`proceeding, and that Attorneys Davis and Durie meet all other requirements
`for admission pro hac vice. See Declarations ¶¶ 1–10. Accordingly, Patent
`Owner has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Attorneys
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`Davis and Durie. They will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission
`of Attorneys Davis and Durie are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Davis and Durie are authorized
`to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel only in this proceeding
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Davis and Durie comply with
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 1 (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 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Davis and Durie 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 at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et
`seq.
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Raymond Nimrod
`Matthew Traupman
`Landon Smith
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`matthewtraupman@quinnemanuel.com
`landonsmith@quinnemanuel.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Adam Brausa
`Rebecca Weires
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`abrausa@mofo.com
`rweires@mofo.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
