`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`EYE THERAPIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case No.: IPR2022-00142
`
`U.S. Patent No.: 8,293,742
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ROBERT FREDERICKSON III
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC
`
`respectfully requests pro hac vice admission of Robert Frederickson III in this
`
`proceeding, IPR2022-00142, regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 (“the ’742
`
`patent”).
`
`I.
`
`THE REQUEST IS TIMELY
`Pursuant to the Board’s “Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition and
`
`Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response,” dated November 22, 2021
`
`(Paper No. 3), authorizing the parties to file motions for pro hac vice admission
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC respectfully requests
`
`that the Board allow Robert Frederickson III to appear pro hac vice on its behalf in
`
`this proceeding. Petitioner does not oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`REASONS THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED
`As set forth in the Statement of Material Facts below, and as required by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c), Petitioner has demonstrated good cause to admit Mr.
`
`Frederickson pro hac vice in this proceeding. In particular, Petitioner’s lead
`
`counsel is a registered practitioner, and Mr. Frederickson is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney having an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`Furthermore, this motion is being filed more than twenty one days after
`
`service of the petition; includes a statement of facts showing good cause for the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Board to recognize Mr. Frederickson pro hac vice; and is being filed concurrently
`
`with Exhibit 1044, the Declaration of Robert Frederickson III in Support of
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert Frederickson III
`
`(“Frederickson Decl.”).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`1.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) provides that “[t]he 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.”
`
`2.
`
`Linnea P. Cipriano, lead counsel for Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC
`
`in this proceeding, is a registered practitioner holding Registration No. 67,729.
`
`3.
`
`As set forth in the Frederickson Decl., Mr. Frederickson is an
`
`experienced litigating attorney. Specifically, Mr. Frederickson has nearly 15 years
`
`of experience representing clients in patent litigations, in United States district
`
`courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Frederickson Decl., ¶¶ 4-
`
`5).
`
`3
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Mr. Frederickson also has an established familiarity with the precise
`
`subject matter at issue in this proceeding. In the course of this representation, she
`
`has developed a strong familiarity with the ’742 patent, its prosecution history, the
`
`general subject matter to which the ’742 patent is directed, and the prior art
`
`references relied upon by Petitioner and Patent Owner in support of their
`
`respective pleadings. (Frederickson Decl., ¶ 6). Additionally, Mr. Frederickson
`
`has thoroughly reviewed the Petition, the Patent Owner’s Response, and
`
`accompanying Exhibits submitted in this proceeding. (Id.).
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Frederickson has attested to the each of the requirements set forth
`
`in paragraph 2(b)(i)-(viii) of the “Order Authorizing Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” in IPR 2013-00639, Paper 7, at 3. (Frederickson Decl., ¶¶ 6-13).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully submits that the
`
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) have been satisfied, and requests an Order
`
`permitting Robert Frederickson III to appear pro hac vice on its behalf in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: August 5, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Linnea P. Cipriano/
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC
`
`5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that “PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
`
`PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ROBERT FREDERICKSON III UNDER 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c),” and “EXHIBIT 1044 - DECLARATION OF ROBERT
`
`FREDERICKSON III IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO
`
`HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ROBERT FREDERICKSON III UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.10(c)” were served electronically via e-mail on August 5, 2022 on the
`
`following:
`
`Bryan Diner bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`Justin Hasford Justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`Caitlin O’Connell caitlin.oconnell@finnegan.com
`Christina Yang christina.yang@finnegan.com
`
`Dated: August 5, 2022
`
`/Linnea P. Cipriano/
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`(Reg. No. 67,729)
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Phone: (212) 813-8800
`Fax: (212) 937-2204
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Slayback Pharma LLC
`
`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
