`Date Filed: November 13, 2015
`
`Filed On Behalf Of:
`
`Novartis AG and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG
`
`By:
`
`Raymond R. Mandra
`ExelonPatchIPR@fchs.com
`(212) 218-2100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`AND MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG AND LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owners
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-005491 (U.S. Patent No. 6,316,023)
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-005502 (U.S. Patent No. 6,335,031)3
`
`THIRD UPDATE TO PATENT OWNERS’ MANDATORY NOTICES
`PURSUANT TO PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3)
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00265 has been joined with this proceeding.
`2 Case IPR2015-00268 has been joined with this proceeding.
`3 Patent Owner attests that the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each
`proceeding identified in the heading.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), Novartis AG and LTS Lohmann Therapie-
`
`Systeme AG (“Patent Owners”) submit the following update to their April 23,
`
`2014 Mandatory Notices (Paper No. 6).
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (b)(2)): On November 12, 2015, Petitioner
`
`Noven Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Noven”) filed a voluntary motion to dismiss with
`
`prejudice its appeal of the decision of the United States District Court for the
`
`District of Delaware, which held that the ’031 Patent is not invalid as obvious or
`
`for obviousness-type double patenting in Novartis v. Noven, C.A. Nos. 13-527-
`
`RGA and 14-111-RGA, parallel District Court proceedings related to IPR Nos.
`
`2014-00549 and 2014-00550.4 See Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Noven
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2015-2051, Unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss
`
`Appeal (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015) (D.I. 16). The United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit on November 13, 2015, granted Noven’s motion to dismiss.
`
`Novartis, No. 2015-2015, Order (D.I. 17). Thus, the District of Delaware’s
`
`4 As stated in Patent Owners’ Second Update Patent Owners’ Mandatory Notices
`
`Pursuant To Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), the ’023 Patent challenged in IPR
`
`No. 2014-00549 was no longer at issue in the parallel District Court proceedings.
`
`(Paper 68.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`holding that the ’031 Patent is not invalid as obvious or for obviousness-type
`
`double patenting, as well as the underlying findings of fact, constitute a final
`
`decision from which no appeal may be taken.
`
`Dated: November 13, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Raymond R. Mandra
`Raymond R. Mandra
`Registration No. 34,382
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing THIRD UPDATE TO PATENT
`
`OWNERS’ MANDATORY NOTICE PURSUANT TO PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3) was served on November 13, 2015 by causing it to be sent by
`
`email to counsel for Petitioners at the following email addresses:
`
`Steven J. Lee (slee@kenyon.com)
`
`Michael K. Levy (mlevy@kenyon.com)
`
`Chris Coulson (ccoulson@kenyon.com)
`
`Joseph M. Reisman (BoxMylan2@knobbe.com)
`
`Jay R. Deshmukh (BoxMylan2@knobbe.com)
`
`William R. Zimmerman (BoxMylan@knobbe.com)
`
`Dated: November 13, 2015
`
`/s/ Raymond R. Mandra
`Raymond R. Mandra
`Registration No. 34,382
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`3