throbber
Paper No. 11
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
` Entered: April 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LIQUIDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)1
`___________
`
`
`
`Before ERICA A. FRANKLIN, ZHENYU YANG, JOHN E. SCHNEIDER,
`and DAVID A. COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.2
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission of Deepa Kannappan
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`1 This Order applies to both proceedings. The parties are not authorized to
`use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`2 This listing of Administrative Patent Judges does not reflect an expanded
`panel under SOP 1 § III.M. This order addresses multiple proceedings that
`collectively involve more than three Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`Petitioner filed an Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`Deepa Kannappan. Paper 23 (“Motion” or “Mot.”).3 Petitioner also filed a
`Declaration of Ms. Kannappan in support of the Motion. Ex. 1041
`(“Declaration”). Petitioner represents that Patent Owner does not oppose the
`Motion. Mot. 1. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Motion is
`granted.
`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, subject to
`the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. The
`representative Order authorizing motions for pro hac vice admission requires
`a statement of facts showing there is good cause for us to recognize counsel
`pro hac vice, and an affidavit or declaration of the individual seeking to
`appear. See Paper 3, 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”)).
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, we conclude that Ms. Kannappan has sufficient legal and
`technical qualifications to represent Petitioner in this proceeding, that Ms.
`Kannappan has demonstrated sufficient familiarity with the subject matter of
`this proceeding, and that Petitioner’s intent to be represented by counsel
`with litigation experience is warranted. Accordingly, Petitioner has
`established good cause for pro hac vice admission of Ms. Kannappan. Ms.
`Kannappan will be permitted to serve as back-up counsel only. See
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).
`
`
`3 For purposes of expediency, we cite to the papers filed in IPR2020-00770.
`Petitioner filed similar papers in IPR2021-00406.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`We note that Petitioner has submitted a Power of Attorney in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) for Ms. Kannappan. Paper 22, 1.
`However, Petitioner’s Mandatory Notices do not identify Ms. Kannappan.
`See Paper 21.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Deepa Kannappan in each of the above-captioned proceedings
`is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file updated Mandatory
`Notices identifying Ms. Kannappan as back-up counsel in the above-
`captioned proceedings in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Kannappan is authorized to represent
`Petitioner only as back-up counsel in the above-captioned proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is to continue to have a
`registered practitioner represent it as lead counsel in the above-captioned
`proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Ms. Kannappan is to comply with the
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide4 (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 Ms. Kannappan is to 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.
`
`
`4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00770 (Patent 9,604,901 B2)
`IPR2021-00406 (Patent 10,716,793 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ivor R. Elrifi
`Erik B. Milch
`Deepa Kannappan
`Sanya Sukduang
`Cooley LLP
`ielrifi@cooley.com
`emilch@cooley.com
`dkannappan@cooley.com
`ssukduang@cooley.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Stephen B. Maebius
`George Quillin
`Daniel R. Shelton
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`smaebius@foley.com
`gquillin@foley.com
`dshelton@foley.com
`
`Shaun R. Snader
`United Therapeutics Corp.
`ssnader@unither.com
`
`Douglas Carsten
`Richard Torczon
`Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket