`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper: 29
`Entered: January 18, 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 Petitioner’s Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice
`of Zachariah Summers and Elliot Choi
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed motions requesting pro hac vice admission of
`Zachariah Summers and Elliot Choi in the above-captioned proceeding.
`Papers 23 and 24 (collectively, “Motions”). Petitioner also submitted
`Declarations from Attorneys Summers and Choi in support of the Motions.
`Exs. 1066 and 1067 (collectively “Declarations”). Petitioner represents that
`Patent Owner 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 Summers and Choi each have
`sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this
`proceeding, that Attorneys Summers and Choi have each demonstrated
`sufficient litigation experience and familiarity with the subject matter of this
`proceeding, and that Attorneys Summers and Choi meet all other
`requirements for admission pro hac vice. See Declarations ¶¶ 1–10.
`Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`admission of Attorneys Summers and Choi. 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 Petitioner’s Motions for pro hac vice admission of
`Attorneys Summers and Choi are granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Summers and Choi are
`authorized to represent Petitioner as back-up counsel in this proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Summers and Choi comply
`with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 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 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Attorneys Summers and Choi 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
`
`