`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper No. 24
`Entered: November 20, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative
`Patent Judge, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and DAVID COTTA, Administrative
`Patent Judges.
`
`COTTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of J.C. Rozendaal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a motion for
`pro hac vice admission of J.C. Rozendaal (“Motion”) (Paper 9), accompanied by a
`Declaration of Mr. Rozendaal in support of the Motion (“Declaration”) (Ex. 1060).
`Patent Owner has not opposed the Motion. For the reasons provided below,
`Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), the Board 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 3, 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”)).
`In this proceeding, lead counsel for Petitioner, Deborah Sterling, Ph.D., a
`registered practitioner, filed the Motion. Mot. 4. In the Motion, Petitioner states
`there is good cause for the Board to recognize Mr. Rozendaal pro hac vice during
`this proceeding because “Mr. Rozendaal has substantial experience and expertise
`representing Teva in cases involving patents on pharmaceutical technologies.” Id.
`In his Declaration, Mr. Rozendaal attests that he has never been suspended
`or disbarred by any court or administrative body, has not been denied for
`admission to practice before any court or administrative body, and has not been
`sanctioned or cited for contempt by any court or administrative body (Dec. ¶¶ 3–5).
`Mr. Rozendaal also states that he has read and will comply with the Office Patent
`Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s rules as set for in 37 C.F.R. § 42, and agrees
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`to be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary
`jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a) (id. ¶¶ 13, 14).1
`Based on the facts set forth in the Motion and the accompanying
`Declaration, Petitioner has established good cause for pro hac vice admission of
`Mr. Rozendaal. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`We also note, a Power of Attorney in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b)
`has not been submitted for Mr. Rozendaal in this proceeding. Therefore, Petitioner
`must submit a Power of Attorney within ten (10) business days.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for pro hac vice for J.C. Rozendaal
`is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within ten (10) business days of the issuance of
`this Order, Petitioner shall submit a Power of Attorney for Mr. Rozendaal in
`accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b);
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall continue to have a registered
`practitioner represent it as lead counsel for this proceeding, but that Mr. Rozendaal
`is authorized to represent Petitioner only as back-up counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Rozendaal shall comply with the Office
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, as updated by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`August 2018 Update, 83 Federal Register 39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018), and the July
`
`
`1 Mr. Rozendaal indicates that he “will comply with the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of
`the Code of Federal Regulations.” Dec. ¶ 13. The Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide and the Board’s Rules are set forth in part 42 of 37 C.F.R. We deem this as
`harmless error.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`2019 Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019), and the Board’s Rules of
`Practice for Trials, as set forth in Part 42 of 37 C.F.R.; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Rozendaal is subject to the Office’s
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a), and the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Deborah Sterling
`Olga Partington
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`Dsterling-ptab@sternekessler.com
`Opartington-ptab@sternekessler.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`Frank Calvosa
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
