`571-272-7822
`
` Paper No. 15
`
` 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 David Mlaver
` 37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of David Mlaver
`(Paper 5) supported by a declaration from Mr. Mlaver (Paper 6).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”)).
`Upon consideration, Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient good cause exists
`to admit Mr. Mlaver pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. David Mlaver is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Mlaver 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. Mlaver 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);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel in this proceeding; Mr. Mlaver is
`authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel in this proceeding; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file an updated mandatory
`notice in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), identifying Mr. Mlaver as back-
`up counsel.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`