`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: January 21, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00040
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`____________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Patent Owner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Bruce R. Genderson
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`
`On January 7, 2020, Patent Owner filed a motion requesting pro hac
`vice admission of Bruce R. Genderson. Paper 8 (“Motion”). Patent Owner
`submitted a Declaration from Mr. Genderson in support of the Motion.
`Ex. 2001 (“Declaration”). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner does not
`oppose the Motion. Motion 6.
`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 Paper 4, 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”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Mr. Genderson has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in this proceeding, that
`Mr. Genderson has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject
`matter of this proceeding, and that Patent Owner’s desire to include counsel
`from the corresponding district court proceeding is warranted. See Motion
`5–6; Declaration ¶¶ 2, 10. Accordingly, Patent Owner has established good
`cause for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Genderson.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion (Paper 8) for pro hac vice
`admission of Bruce R. Genderson is granted; Mr. Genderson is authorized to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in the above-identified
`proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel for the instant proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Genderson comply with the
`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. Genderson 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.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`2 In the Declaration, Mr. Genderson indicates he will be subject to the
`USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility, which no longer exists.
`Declaration ¶ 8. We assume Mr. Genderson intended to refer to the USPTO
`Rules of Professional Conduct. We deem this harmless error, and, as
`ordered supra, Mr. Genderson will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00040
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`For Petitioner:
`
`Jitendra Malik
`Alissa M. Pacchioli
`Christopher W. West
`Heike S. Radeke
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMAN LLP
`jitty.malik@kattenlaw.com
`alissa.pacchioli@kattenlaw.com
`christopher.west@katten.com
`heike.radeke@katten.com
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`Stanley E. Fisher
`Jessamyn S. Berniker
`Shaun P. Mahaffy
`Anthony H. Sheh
`Bruce R. Genderson
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`sfisher@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`smahaffy@wc.com
`asheh@wc.com
`bgenderson@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
