`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`
`BLUEBIRD BIO, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SLOAN KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RESEARCH,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00070
`Patent No. 7,541,179
`_________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`OF KRYSTINA L. HO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00070
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board recognize Krystina L. Ho as counsel pro hac
`
`vice during this proceeding. This motion was authorized in the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition and Time for Filing Patent Owner Preliminary Response filed
`
`on October 25, 2022. (Paper 3.) Because this motion meets all of the Board’s
`
`requirements, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this motion. Prior to filing this
`
`motion, Petitioner conferred with Patent Owner, and Patent Owner indicated that it
`
`does not intend to oppose this motion.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Petitioner has been authorized to file motions seeking admission pro hac vice
`
`under 37 C.F.R. §42.10(c). Petitioner’s lead counsel and back-up counsel are
`
`registered practitioners. (Paper 1 at 3.) As set forth in the accompanying declaration,
`
`Ms. Ho is an attorney at Paul Hastings LLP. (Ex. 1048 at ¶ 2.) She is an experienced
`
`litigating attorney with more than five years of experience and has served as counsel
`
`in several patent infringement lawsuits before the district courts. (Id.)
`
`Ms. Ho has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in this
`
`proceeding. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Ms. Ho has reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,541,179, the patent-
`
`at-issue, and other papers associated with this matter. (Id.)
`
`In addition, Ms. Ho is a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of New
`
`York. (Id. at ¶ 1.) She has never been suspended or disbarred from practice before
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00070
`
`any court or administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 3.) She has never had an application for
`
`admission to practice before any court or administrative body denied. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
`
`She has never had sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or
`
`administrative body. (Id. at ¶ 5.) She 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 ¶ 6.) She 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 ¶ 7.) In the last
`
`three years, Ms. Ho has applied to appear pro hac vice in the following proceedings,
`
`and not any other proceedings. (Id. at ¶ 9.) These applications were granted. (Id.)
`
` JSR Corp. and JSR Life Sciences, LLC v. Cytiva Bioprocess R&D AB,
`
`IPR2022-00036,
`
`IPR2022-00041,
`
`IPR2022-00042,
`
`IPR2022-00043,
`
`IPR2022-00044, and IPR2022-00045
`
`III. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
`
`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.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.10(c). For example, where the lead counsel is a registered practitioner, a motion to
`
`appear pro hac vice may be granted upon showing that counsel who is seeking pro
`
`hac vice admission is “an experienced litigating attorney and has an established
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00070
`
`familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” (Id.) The motion for
`
`pro hac vice admission must contain a statement of facts showing good cause and
`
`be accompanied by a declaration of the individual who is seeking admission. See
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper No. 7 at 3-4
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2013). The declaration in turn must contain certain attestations.
`
`(Id.)
`
`This motion and the accompanying declaration meet all of the Board’s
`
`requirements. The lead counsel in this proceeding, Naveen Modi, is a registered
`
`practitioner. (Paper 1 at 3.) Ms. Ho is an experienced litigating attorney and has an
`
`established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding. (See Ex.
`
`1048 at ¶¶ 2, 8.) Ms. Ho’s declaration makes the necessary attestations. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner submits that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Ms. Ho as counsel pro hac vice in this proceeding.
`
`Dated: June 8, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that I caused to be served on the counsel identified below a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of
`
`Krystina L. Ho by electronic means on June 8, 2023:
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`Luke Toft (Reg. No. 75,311)
`ltoft@foxrothschild.com
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3600
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 607-7000
`Facscimile: (612) 607-7100
`
`Joe Chen (Reg. No. 70,066)
`joechen@foxrothschild.com
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`997 Lenox Drive
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`Telephone: (609) 844-3024
`Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
`
`Michael W. Glynn, Ph.D.
`mglynn@foxrothschild.com
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10178
`Telephone: (212) 878-7900
`Facsimile: (212) 692-0940
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
