UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP., EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608
`_______________
`
`Before the Honorable NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and ROBERT L.
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHEW M. W OLF
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP., EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND
`EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES AG,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00060
`Patent 8,992,608
`_______________
`
`Before the Honorable NEIL T. POWELL, JAMES A. TARTAL, and ROBERT L.
`KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHEW M. W OLF
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), and as authorized in the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board’s (“Board”) Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 3),
`
`Patent Owner Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) respectfully
`
`requests pro hac vice admission of Matthew M. Wolf as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`II. GOVERNING LAW
`
`, RULES, AND PRECEDENT
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) states:
`
`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 and to any other
`conditions as the Board may impose. For example, where the lead
`counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by
`counsel who is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon
`showing that counsel is an experienced litigating attorney and has an
`established familiarity with the subject matter at
`issue in the
`proceeding.
`
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).)
`
`Further, the Board’s Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 3)
`
`states that a motion for pro hac vice admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) “shall
`
`be filed in accordance with the ‘Order -- Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission’ in Case IPR2013-00639” (“IPR2013-00639 Order”). (Paper 3 at 2.)
`
`IPR2013-00639 Order requires the pro hac vice motion to (a) be filed “no sooner
`
`than twenty one (21) days after service of the petition,” (b) “contain a statement of
`
`facts showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`during the proceeding,” and (c) be accompanied by a declaration of the individual
`
`seeking to appear attesting to the following:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`vii.
`
`viii.
`
`Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or
`the District of Columbia;
`No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court
`or administrative body;
`No application for admission to practice before any court or
`administrative body ever denied;
`No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`administrative body;
`The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with
`the Office Patent Trial practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of
`Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R.;
`The individual will be subject
`to the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et. seq.
`and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a);
`All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual
`has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years;
`and
`Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.
`
`(Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, at 2-3 (Oct.
`
`15, 2013).)
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Based on the following facts and accompanying Declaration of
`
`Matthew M. Wolf in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission (Ex. 2010),
`
`Patent Owner submits that a showing of good cause has been made and
`
`respectfully requests pro hac vice admission of Matthew M. Wolf as counsel in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`1.
`
`On October 12, 2016, Petitioners Edwards Lifesciences Corporation,
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences AG (“Petitioners”) filed and
`
`served its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,992,608
`
`(“Petition”). (Paper 1.)
`
`2.
`
`On January 23, 2017, Patent Owner filed and served its Preliminary
`
`Response. (Paper 6.)
`
`3.
`
`On March 29, 2017, the Board issued its Decision Instituting Inter
`
`Partes Review. (Paper 7.)
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner’s lead counsel, Jennifer A. Sklenar, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 40,205). (Paper 4 at 2.)
`
`5.
`
`Patent Owner’s back-up counsel, Wallace Wu, is a registered
`
`practitioner (Reg. No. 45,380). (Id.)
`
`6.
`
`Mr. Wolf is a partner at the law firm of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
`
`LLP. (Ex. 2010 at ¶ 1.)
`
`7.
`
`Mr. Wolf is an experienced litigation attorney and chair of
`
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP’s intellectual property practice group. (Id. at ¶
`
`10.) Mr. Wolf has been practicing law since 1994 and has extensive experience
`
`litigating patent infringement cases in United States District Courts, the United
`
`States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the United States Supreme
`
`Court. (Id.)
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Wolf has participated in numerous patent infringement trials and
`
`appeals, including oral arguments, Markman hearings, summary judgment
`
`proceedings, and other related hearings and proceedings. (Id.) By virtue of his
`
`patent litigation experience, Mr. Wolf is well versed in the law regarding claim
`
`construction and obviousness, which are at issue in this proceeding. (Id.)
`
`9.
`
`Mr. Wolf is a member in good standing of the Maryland State Bar.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 2.)
`
`10.
`
`Mr. Wolf is also admitted to practice and in good standing in the
`
`following United States courts and states’ highest courts:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
`Supreme Court of Colorado
`United States District Court for the District of Maryland
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
`United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
`United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
`United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`United States Supreme Court
`
`(Id. at ¶ 3.)
`
`11.
`
`Mr. Wolf has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Mr. Wolf has never had an application for admission to practice
`
`before any court or administrative body denied, except as provided in
`
`paragraph 16. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
`
`13.
`
`No sanctions or contempt citations have ever been imposed against
`
`Mr. Wolf by any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 6.)
`
`14.
`
`Mr. Wolf has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`
`title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
`
`15.
`
`Mr. Wolf agrees to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`
`Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). (Id. at ¶ 8.)
`
`16.
`
`Mr. Wolf has applied to appear pro hac vice in four other proceedings
`
`before the USPTO in the last three years: CBM2014-00158, Reexam Control No.
`
`95/001,933 (Appeal No. 2015-007845), Reexam Control No. 95/002,058 (Appeal
`
`No. 2016-006894), and IPR2016-00868. (Id. at ¶ 9.) The USPTO granted Mr.
`
`Wolf’s pro hac vice applications in CBM2014-00158 and Reexam
`
`Control No. 95/002,058 (Appeal No. 2016-006894). (Id.) The USPTO denied
`
`Mr. Wolf’s pro hac vice application in Reexam Control No. 95/001,933 (Appeal
`
`No. 2015-007845) because the moving party “failed to provide a showing that
`
`there [was] good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice” in
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Reexam Control No. 95/001,933 and because Mr. Wolf’s declaration “lack[ed] a
`
`statement that counsel has read and will comply with the Office’s Rules of
`
`Practice, 37 C.F.R., Part 41 and with the relevant rules of conduct for inter partes
`
`reexamination, 37 C.F.R., Part 1, Subpart H.” (Reexam Control No. 95/001,933
`
`(Appeal No. 2015-007845), Decision On Petition, at 5-6 (Dec. 8, 2015).) Mr.
`
`Wolf’s pro hac vice application in IPR2016-00868 is pending.
`
`17.
`
`Mr. Wolf has represented Patent Owner and its parent entity, Boston
`
`Scientific Corporation, in many of their patent litigation matters over the years,
`
`including with respect to medical devices. (Id. at ¶ 11.) By virtue of Mr. Wolf’s
`
`long-standing representation of Patent Owner, Mr. Wolf has an established
`
`familiarity with Patent Owner and its business, medical devices, patent portfolio,
`
`in-house counsel, and litigation preferences and objectives. (Id.)
`
`18.
`
`Mr. Wolf also has an established familiarity with the subject matter at
`
`issue in this proceeding, including, inter alia, U.S. Patent No. 8,992,608 (the “‘608
`
`patent”), its prior art, and the field of transcatheter aortic heart valves. (Id. at ¶ 12.)
`
`Mr. Wolf is lead counsel for Patent Owner in the related district court litigation
`
`Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-
`
`00275-SLR-SRF (D. Del.). (Id.) That litigation also involves the ‘608 patent and
`
`overlaps with this proceeding on a number of significant issues, including the
`
`technology disclosed and claimed in the ‘608 patent, the interpretation of the ‘608
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`patent’s claims, and the validity of the ‘608 patent. (see Ex. 2010 at ¶ 12.) As lead
`
`counsel, Mr. Wolf has been heavily involved in all substantive decisions, including
`
`forming Patent Owner’s claim construction, infringement, and validity positions.
`
`(Ex. 2010 at ¶ 12.)
`
`19.
`
`If admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding, Mr. Wolf would, in all
`
`likelihood, represent Patent Owner before the Board at oral argument, if requested
`
`by either party. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`First, this Motion is timely because it will be filed more than twenty-one
`
`days after service of the Petition, which occurred on October 12, 2016. (Paper 1;
`
`see Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, at 2-3
`
`(Oct. 15, 2013).)
`
`Second, as required by IPR2013-00639 Order, this Motion is accompanied
`
`by the Declaration of Matthew M. Wolf in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission. (Ex. 2010; see Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00639, Paper 7, at 2-3 (Oct. 15, 2013).)
`
`Third, 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. (See 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c).) Patent Owner’s lead and
`
`back-up counsel are registered practitioners. Further, the foregoing facts and
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`accompanying Declaration of Matthew M. Wolf in Support of Motion for Pro Hac
`
`Vice Admission (Ex. 2010) demonstrate that good cause exists to admit Mr. Wolf
`
`pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Mr. Wolf has extensive experience litigating patent infringement cases
`
`through trial and appeal. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Mr. Wolf is well versed in the law
`
`regarding claim construction and obviousness, which are at issue in this
`
`proceeding. (Id.) Mr. Wolf has an established familiarity with Patent Owner and
`
`its business, medical devices, patent portfolio, in-house counsel, and litigation
`
`preferences and objectives. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Mr. Wolf also has an established
`
`familiarity with the subject matter and issues of this proceeding, including the
`
`technology disclosed and claimed in the ‘608 patent, the interpretation of the ‘608
`
`patent’s claims, the validity of the ‘608 patent, the ‘608 patent’s prior art, and the
`
`field of transcatheter aortic heart valves. (Id. at ¶ 12.) In regards to the related
`
`district court litigation, Mr. Wolf has, as lead counsel, been heavily involved in all
`
`substantive decisions, including forming Patent Owner’s claim construction,
`
`infringement, and validity positions. (Id.) By virtue of Mr. Wolf’s relationship
`
`with Patent Owner, knowledge of Patent Owner’s litigation preferences and
`
`objectives, and deep understanding of the subject matter and significant issues of
`
`this proceeding and the related district court litigation, Mr. Wolf is well-suited to
`
`represent Patent Owner in this proceeding and at oral argument and Patent Owner
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`has a substantial need for Mr. Wolf’s pro hac vice admission and involvement in
`
`this proceeding.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for the Board to admit Mr.
`
`Wolf pro hac vice in this proceeding. (See 37 C.F.R. 42.10(c) (“[W]here the lead
`
`counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to appear pro hac vice by counsel who
`
`is not a registered practitioner may be granted upon showing that counsel is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject
`
`matter at issue in the proceeding.”).)
`
`V.
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT OPPOSE THIS MOTION
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner has notified counsel for Petitioner of its intention
`
`to file this Motion. Counsel for Petitioner does not oppose this Motion.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons and the reasons contained in the attached
`
`Declaration of Matthew M. Wolf in Support of Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission (Ex. 2010), Patent Owner respectfully requests pro hac vice admission
`
`of Matthew M. Wolf as counsel in this proceeding.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jennifer Sklenar/
`Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)
`Wallace Wu, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 45,380)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
`SCHOLER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel:
`(213) 243-4000
`Fax:
`(213) 243-4199
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Boston
`Scientific Scimed, Inc.
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR PRO
`HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHEW M. WOLF was served on May 9, 2017
`to the following Counsel for Petitioner via e-mail:
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey, Lead Counsel
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`Brian Egan
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`began@MNAT.com
`
`Catherine Nyarady
`Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
`1285 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10019
`cnyarady@paulweiss.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Edward Lifesciences Corp., Edwards Lifesciences
`LLC, and Edwards Lifesciences AG
`
`/Jennifer A. Sklenar/
`Jennifer A. Sklenar (Reg. No. 40,205)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE
`SCHOLER LLP
`777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel:
`(213) 243-4000
`Fax: (213) 243-4199
`
`-i-
`
`
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
