`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 22
`Entered: November 20, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative
`Patent Judge, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and DAVID COTTA, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`COTTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Uma N. Everett
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for
`pro hac vice admission of Uma N. Everett (“Motion”) (Paper 10), accompanied by
`a Declaration of Ms. Everett in support of the Motion (“Declaration”) (Ex. 1061).
`Patent Owner has not opposed the Motion. For the reasons provided below,
`Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board 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 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”)).
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioner, Deborah Sterling, Ph.D., a
`registered practitioner, filed the Motion. Mot. 4. In the Motion, Petitioner states
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize Ms. Everett pro hac vice during this
`proceeding because “Ms. Everett has substantial experience and expertise
`representing Teva in the concurrent litigation involving the ’214 patent.” Id.
`In her Declaration, Ms. Everett attests that she has never been suspended or
`disbarred by any court or administrative body, has not been denied for admission
`to practice before any court or administrative body, and has not been sanctioned or
`cited for contempt by any court or administrative body (Dec. ¶¶ 3–5). Ms. Everett
`also states that she has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide and the Board’s rules as set for in 37 C.F.R. § 42, and agrees to be subject to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37
`C.F.R. § 11.19(a) (id. ¶¶ 14, 15).1
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of
`Ms. Everett. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`We also note, a Power of Attorney in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`has not been submitted for Ms. Everett in this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner
`must submit a Power of Attorney within ten (10) business days.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice for Uma N. Everett
`is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) business days of the issuance of
`this Order, Petitioner shall submit a Power of Attorney for Ms. Everett in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding, but that Ms. Everett is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Everett shall comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide August
`2018 Update, 83 Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), and the July 2019
`
`
`1 Ms. Everett indicates that she “will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the Code
`of Federal Regulations.” Dec. ¶ 14. The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and
`the Board’s Rules are set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R. We deem this as harmless
`error.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019), and the Board’s Rules of Practice for
`Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of 37 C.F.R.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Everett is 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
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Deborah Sterling
`Olga Partington
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`Dsterling-ptab@sternekessler.com
`Opartington-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`Frank Calvosa
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`