`571-272-7822 Entered: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG and LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-005491 (Patent 6,316,023 B1)
`Case IPR2014-005502 (Patent 6,335,031 B1) 3
`
`____________
`
`
`
`Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS and ERICA A. FRANKLIN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Consolidated Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00265 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2015-00268 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 This order addresses issues common to both cases. The parties are
`authorized to use this style heading when filing the same paper in multiple
`proceedings, but must include a footnote attesting that “the word-for-word
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.”
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 (Patent 6,316,023 B1)
`IPR2014-00550 (Patent 6,335,031 B1)
`
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each have requested a consolidated oral
`
`
`
`hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 41 and 47 (IPR2015-00549);
`
`Papers 40 and 46 (IPR2015-00550). The requests for a consolidated oral
`
`hearing are granted, with the understanding that the hearing and content of
`
`each party’s oral argument will be in accordance with the remainder of this
`
`Order. Oral arguments will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on June 2,
`
`2015, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street,
`
`Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each will have one hour to present
`
`arguments. Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Petitioner will, therefore, open the
`
`hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for which the
`
`Board instituted trial. Patent Owner will then respond to Petitioner’s
`
`arguments. Petitioner may reserve time to reply to arguments presented by
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that
`
`will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The Board will
`
`provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall constitute the official record
`
`of the hearing.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`
`least five business days before the hearing. The Board requests that such
`
`exhibits be filed at the Board at least five business days before the hearing.
`
`The parties must file any objections to the demonstratives with the Board at
`
`least two business days before the hearing. Any objection to demonstrative
`
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived. The
`
`objections should identify with particularity which demonstratives are
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 (Patent 6,316,023 B1)
`IPR2014-00550 (Patent 6,335,031 B1)
`
`subject to objection, and include a short (one sentence or less) statement of
`
`
`
`the reason for each objection. No argument or further explanation is
`
`permitted. The Board asks the parties to confine demonstrative exhibit
`
`objections to those identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial to the
`
`administration of justice. The Board will consider the objections and
`
`schedule a conference if deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will
`
`reserve ruling on the objections until after the oral argument. The parties are
`
`directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The Board of
`
`Regents of the University of Michigan, IPR2013-00041 (PTAB January 27,
`
`2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate content of
`
`demonstrative exhibits. The parties are reminded that the presenter must
`
`identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or
`
`screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and
`
`accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`
`at the oral hearing. Any counsel of record, however, may present the party’s
`
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`
`attending the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`
`Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received timely, the equipment may
`
`not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 (Patent 6,316,023 B1)
`IPR2014-00550 (Patent 6,335,031 B1)
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`
`
`ORDERED that oral arguments in this proceeding shall take place
`
`beginning at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on June 2, 2015, on the ninth floor of
`
`Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are authorized to file
`
`objections to demonstrative exhibits no later than two business days before
`
`the hearing, and any objection not timely presented shall be deemed waived.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00549 (Patent 6,316,023 B1)
`IPR2014-00550 (Patent 6,335,031 B1)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven J. Lee
`Michael K. Levy
`Christopher J. Coulson
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`slee@kenyon.com
`mlevy@kenyon.com
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`
`
`Joseph Reisman
`Jay Deshmukh
`William R. Zimmerman
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`BoxMylan@knobbe.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Raymond R. Mandra
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`ExelonPatchIPR@fchs.com
`rmandra@fchs.com
`nkallas@fchs.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`