Filed on behalf of CYTONOME/ST LLC
`By: Kirt O’Neill (koneill@akingump.com)
`
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1010
`
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`
`Tel: (210) 281-7106
`
`Fax: (210) 224-2035
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Date Filed: August 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`NANOCELLECT BIOMEDICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYTONOME/ST, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00550
`Patent 9,011,797
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`THOMAS W. LANDERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Kirt O’Neill (koneill@akingump.com)
`
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
`
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1010
`
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`
`Tel: (210) 281-7106
`
`Fax: (210) 224-2035
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`Date Filed: August 18, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`NANOCELLECT BIOMEDICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CYTONOME/ST, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00550
`Patent 9,011,797
`________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF
`THOMAS W. LANDERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00550
`Patent No. 9,011,797
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and the Board’s February 21, 2020 Notice
`
`of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 5), Patent Owner Cytonome/ST, LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`respectfully requests the pro hac vice admission of attorney Thomas W. Landers in
`
`this proceeding. Patent Owner has conferred with counsel for NanoCellect
`
`Biomedical, Inc. (“Petitioner”), and Petitioner does not oppose this motion.
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Facts Showing Good Cause for the Board to Recognize
`Thomas W. Landers Pro Hac Vice in this Proceeding
`
`The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during an inter partes review
`
`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.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). “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.” Id.
`
`As set forth below and in the accompanying Declaration of Thomas W.
`
`Landers in Support of Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (“Landers Decl.,” Exhibit
`
`2033), the facts here establish good cause for the Board to recognize Thomas W.
`
`Landers pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00550
`Patent No. 9,011,797
`
`1. Lead counsel, Kirt O’Neill, is a registered practitioner (Reg. No.
`
`38,257).
`
`2. Mr. Landers is a member in good standing of the State Bar Texas (Bar
`
`No. 24102057). See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 2.
`
`3. Mr. Landers has never been suspended or disbarred from practice
`
`before any court or administrative body. See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 3.
`
`4. None of Mr. Landers’s applications for admission to practice before
`
`any court or administrative body have ever been denied. See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 4.
`
`5. Mr. Landers has not been sanctioned nor has he had a contempt
`
`citation imposed on him by any court or administrative body. See Exhibit 2033, ¶
`
`5.
`
`6. Mr. Landers has declared that he has read and will comply with the
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trial set
`
`forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R. See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 6.
`
`7. Mr. Landers has acknowledged and agrees that he 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). See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 7.
`
`8. Mr. Landers has appeared pro hac vice before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board in two inter partes review proceedings in the last three years. See
`
`Exhibit 2033, ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00550
`Patent No. 9,011,797
`
`9. Mr. Landers has been a practicing attorney for nearly four years in the
`
`areas of patent litigation and patent advisory work. He has been involved in
`
`numerous patent infringement cases in district courts across the country, as well as
`
`the Federal Circuit. He is presently counsel for Patent Owner in a related litigation
`
`captioned Cytonome/ST, LLC v. NanoCellect Biomedical, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-
`
`00301-UNA (D. Del.). See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 9.
`
`10.
`
`In preparation for his representation of Cytonome/ST, LLC in the
`
`district court litigation and before the Board in this inter partes review, Mr.
`
`Landers has studied and analyzed the field of technology relevant to the ‘797
`
`patent, as well as the claims, specification, and prosecution history of the ‘797
`
`patent. Accordingly, Mr. Landers has become very familiar with both the
`
`particular subject matter and substantive issues concerning the ‘797 patent. He is
`
`also familiar with the alleged prior art references asserted by Petitioner in this inter
`
`partes review proceeding. See Exhibit 2033, ¶ 9.
`
`In view of Mr. Landers’s knowledge of the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding, and in view of the interrelatedness of this proceeding and those
`
`mentioned above, Patent Owner has a substantial need for Mr. Landers’s pro hac
`
`vice admission and his involvement in this proceeding. In addition, pro hac vice
`
`admission of Mr. Landers will enable Patent Owner to avoid unnecessary expense
`
`and duplication of work between this proceeding and the related cases mentioned
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00550
`Patent No. 9,011,797
`
`above. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,661 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Office’s comment on
`
`final rule discussing concerns about efficiency and costs where an entity has
`
`already engaged counsel for parallel district court litigation).
`
`II.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`admit Thomas W. Landers pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: August 18, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Kirt O’Neill/
`By:
`Kirt O’Neill
`Registration No. 38,257
`koneill@akingump.com
`Daniel L. Moffett
`Registration No. 60,715
`dmoffett@akingump.com
`George Andrew Rosbrook
`Registration No. 69,728
`arosbrook@akingump.com
`Dorian Ojemen
`Registration No. 72,596
`dojemen@akingump.com
`Thomas W. Landers
`Pro Hac Vice Admission Pending
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
`FELD LLP
`112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1010
`San Antonio, Texas 78205
`Tel: 210-281-7100
`Fax: 210-224-2035
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`Cytonome/ST, LLC
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00550
`Patent No. 9,011,797
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Thomas W. Landers was served on
`
`counsel of record on August 18, 2020 by filing this document through the End-to-
`
`End System, as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail to counsel of record
`
`for the Petitioner at the following addresses:
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Michael T. Rosato – mrosato@wsgr.com
`Lora Green – lgreen@wsgr.com
`Douglas Carsten – dcarsten@wsgr.com
`Jad A. Mills – jmills@wsgr.com
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Kirt O’Neill/
`Kirt O’Neill
`Registration No. 38,257
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
