`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 14
`
` Date Entered: November 30, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PLEXXIKON INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01287
`Patent 9,469,640 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KOKOSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Admission
`Pro Hac Vice of Thomas P. Steindler
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Thomas P.
`Steindler (Paper 3) supported by a declaration from Mr. Steindler (Paper 4). 1
`Patent Owner did not oppose the motion. The motion is granted.
`
`
`1 The parties are reminded that affidavits and declarations must be filed as exhibits
`so they may be referenced individually by exhibit number. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.63.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01287
`Patent 9,469,640 B2
`
`
`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”)).
`Having reviewed the motion and supporting declaration, good cause exists
`for granting admission pro hac vice to Mr. Steindler.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Thomas P. Steindler is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Steindler is to comply with the Board’s
`Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal
`Regulations and the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide including the August 2018
`update;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Steindler is 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. Steindler is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01287
`Patent 9,469,640 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert H. Underwood
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`runderwood@mwe.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`Derek C. Walter
`Brian Chang
`WEIL, GOTSCHAL & MANGES LLP
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`derek.walter@weil.com
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
