`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 42
`
`Entered: January 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Jonathan Davies
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`On January 4, 2022, Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Jonathan Davies in the above-
`captioned proceeding. Paper 34. The Motion is supported by a Declaration
`of Mr. Davies. Ex. 1083. Petitioner represents in the Motion that Mr.
`Davies is an experienced patent litigation attorney and that good cause exists
`for the Board to recognize Mr. Davies pro hac vice. Paper 34, 1–2. Mr.
`Davies represents that he has sufficient familiarity with the subject matter at
`issue in this proceeding. Ex. 1083 ¶¶ 8–9. Patent Owner, United
`Therapeutics Corporation, has not opposed the Motion. Paper 34, 1.
`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. In
`authorizing a motion for pro hac vice admission, the Board requires the
`moving party to provide a statement of facts showing good cause exists 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”)).
`The Board has reviewed Petitioner’s submissions and determined that
`the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10 have been met and good cause exists
`to admit Mr. Davies pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`It is therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion seeking admission pro hac
`vice for Jonathan Davies in this proceeding is GRANTED;
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davies is authorized to represent
`Petitioner as back-up counsel only, and that Petitioner is to continue to have
`a registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davies is to 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
`37 C.F.R.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Davies shall be 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`3
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00406
`Patent 10,716,793 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ivor Elrifi
`Erik Milch
`Sanya Sukduang
`Jonathan R. Davies
`COOLEY LLP
`ielrifi@cooley.com,
`emilch@cooley.com,
`sanya.sukduang@finnegan.com
`jdavies@cooley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Stephen B. Maebius
`Michael R. Houston
`Jason Mock
`Shaun R. Snader
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`smaebius@foley.com
`mhouston@foley.com
`jmock@foley.com
`ssnader@unither.com
`
`Douglas Carsten
`April E. Weisbruch
`Judy Mohr, Ph.D.
`Arthur P. Dykhuis
`Jiaxiao Zhang
`Amy L. Mahan, Ph.D.
`Mandy Kim
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`dcarsten@mwe.com
`aweisbruch@mwe.com
`jmohr@mwe.com
`adykhuis@mwe.com
`jiazhang@mwe.com
`amahan@mwe.com
`mhkim@mwe.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
