`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper: 81
`Entered: November 6, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BIOGEN MA INC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01403
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`____________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Motions for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Michael A. Chajon and Shannon M. Bloodworth
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01403
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for pro hac vice admission of Michael A.
`Chajon (Paper 44) (“Chajon Motion”) and Motion for pro hac vice
`admission of Shannon M. Bloodworth (Paper 52) (“Bloodworth Motion”) in
`the above-identified proceeding. Petitioner also filed a supporting
`declaration from Mr. Chajon (Exhibit 1061) and a supporting declaration
`from Ms. Bloodworth (Exhibit 1062). Petitioner states that Patent Owner
`does not oppose either Motion. Chajon Motion 1; Bloodworth Motion 1.
`Pursuant to 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 its notice
`authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires 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 this proceeding. See Paper 4, 2 (citing Unified Patents,
`Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2013)
`(representative “Order – Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission”)).
`The Board has reviewed the submissions and determined that the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met, and that there is good
`cause to admit Mr. Chajon and Ms. Bloodworth pro hac vice.
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Motions (Papers 44, 52) are granted, and
`Mr. Chajon and Ms. Bloodworth are authorized to represent Petitioner as
`back-up counsel in the above-listed proceeding;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01403
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit, within ten (10)
`business days of the date of this order, a Power of Attorney for Mr. Chajon
`and Ms. Bloodworth in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);1
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chajon and Ms. Bloodworth shall
`comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the July
`2019 Update, 84 Federal Register 33,925 (July 16, 2019), and the Board’s
`Rules of Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of
`Federal Regulations;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Chajon and Ms. Bloodworth are
`subject to the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 11.101 et seq. and to the USPTO’s disciplinary jurisdiction under
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a); and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding;
`Mr. Chajon and Ms. Bloodworth are authorized to represent Petitioner only
`as back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 If either Mr. Chajon or Ms. Bloodworth intends to present argument at oral
`hearing, the Power of Attorney must be submitted prior to the hearing date.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01403
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brandon White
`David L. Anstaett
`Maria A. Stubbings
`Emily J. Greb
`Courtney M. Prochnow
`Nathan K. Kelley
`white-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
`DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`Mstubbings@perkinscoie.com
`EGreb@perkinscoie.com
`CProchnow@perkinscoie.com
`NKelley@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Barbara McCurdy
`Erin Sommers
`Pier DeRoo
`Mark Feldstein
`Cora R. Holt
`Barbara.mccurdy@finnegan.com
`Mark.feldstein@finnegan.com
`Erin.sommers@finnegan.com
`Pier.deroo@finnegan.com
`cora.holt@finnegan.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
