Paper No. 10
`Filed: October 1, 2014
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent 8,475,832
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`Filed: October 1, 2014
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`BIODELIVERY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`RB PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent 8,475,832
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Patent Owner RB Pharmaceuticals Limited opposes Petitioner Biodelivery
`
`Sciences International, Inc.’s motion for joinder seeking to join the present
`
`proceeding with IPR2014-00325 (“the ’325 IPR”). This opposition is timely
`
`pursuant to the Board’s Order on September 2, 2014. Paper 7, 3.
`
`As shown in the concurrently filed Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response,
`
`trial should not be instituted in the present proceeding because Petitioner’s
`
`redundant second Petition asserting substantially the same arguments and art
`
`against the same claims of the same patent should be denied in its entirety as to all
`
`challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d). This motion for joinder
`
`will then be moot.
`
`However, although the primary reference, Euro-Celtique, that Petitioner
`
`relies on in each of the four Grounds asserted in this proceeding, was asserted in
`
`the Petition in the ’325 IPR, the Board did not institute on any Ground based on
`
`that reference in the ’325 IPR. Therefore, in the event that the Board does not find
`
`that the present Euro-Celtique-based Grounds are redundant of those presented in
`
`the ‘325 IPR and decides to institute trial on any of the presently asserted Grounds,
`
`joinder with the ’325 IPR (and under the schedule now set in that IPR) would be
`
`inappropriate for numerous reasons: (1) this proceeding, if instituted, would
`
`present separate Grounds of unpatentability relying on separate art (specifically, a
`
`separate primary reference) than the Grounds instituted on the ’325 IPR (again,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Euro-Celtique was asserted but not instituted on in the ’325 IPR), and (2) the
`
`current trial schedule in the ’325 IPR would not accommodate the additional
`
`briefing and discovery required by institution of one or more Grounds in this
`
`proceeding due to the 5 month delay between Petitioner’s filing of the two
`
`proceedings.
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Material Facts1
`
`1.
`
`On January 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`of Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,475,832 (“the ’832 patent”) (“first Petition”).
`
`1 Petitioner submitted a statement of material facts in its motion for joinder. Paper
`
`6, 1-7. Because it believes Petitioner’s statement to be incomplete of the facts
`
`material to whether joinder is appropriate in this proceeding, Patent Owner submits
`
`the following statement of material facts. Additionally, Patent Owner notes that
`
`Petitioner spends nearly half of its statement of material facts discussing events
`
`relating to U.S. Application No. 13/964,975. Paper 6, 4-7. Patent Owner submits
`
`those purported “facts” are wholly irrelevant, i.e., not material, to whether joinder
`
`should be granted in the instant proceeding. Indeed, the immateriality of that
`
`discussion is evidenced by the fact that Petitioner doesn’t rely on a single “fact”
`
`relating to that proceeding to support the merits of its motion. See generally Paper
`
`6, 7-15.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. RB Pharmaceuticals Ltd., IPR2014-00325 (“the
`
`’325 IPR”), Paper 5. The first Petition requested trial be instituted for Claims 15-19
`
`on the following Grounds:
`
` Ground 1 – Anticipated by the Suboxone Tablet Label
` Ground 2 – Obvious in view of the Suboxone Tablet Label
` Ground 3 – Obvious in view of the Suboxone Tablet Label and Yang
` Ground 4 – Obvious in view of the Suboxone Tablet Label, Yang, and Birch
` Ground 5 – Anticipated by Labtec
` Ground 6 – Obvious in view of Labtec
` Ground 7 – Obvious in view of Labtec and Birch
` Ground 8 – Obvious in view of Labtec, Birch, and Yang
` Ground 9 – Anticipated by Euro-Celtique
` Ground 10 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique
` Ground 11 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique and Birch
` Ground 12 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique, Birch, and Yang
`
`2.
`
`In support of the first Petition, Petitioner presented declarations of Dr.
`
`Reitman (Ex. 1004 in this proceeding and the ’325 IPR) and Dr. Lavin (Ex. 1005
`
`in this proceeding and the ’325 IPR).
`
`3.
`
`On April 30, 2014, Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response in the
`
`’325 IPR, which challenged the sufficiency of each Ground proposed by Petitioner
`
`and argued Petitioner failed to present evidence in the form of expert testimony
`
`supporting its obviousness Grounds. IPR2014-00325, Paper 15.
`
`4.
`
`On June 20, 2014, more than five months after the first Petition and
`
`almost two months after Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in the ’325 IPR,
`
`Petitioner filed another petition for inter partes review of Claims 15-19 of the ’832
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`patent (“second Petition”). Paper 2. The second Petition requested trial be
`
`instituted for Claims 15-19 on the following Grounds:
`
` Ground 1 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique
` Ground 2 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique and the EMEA Study Report
` Ground 3 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique, the EMEA Study Report, and
`the ’883 Application
` Ground 4 – Obvious in view of Euro-Celtique, the EMEA Study Report, and
`Yang
`
`5.
`
`In support of the second Petition, Petitioner presented declarations of
`
`Dr. Reitman (Ex. 1004 in this proceeding and the ’325 IPR), Dr. Lavin (Ex. 1005
`
`in this proceeding and the ’325 IPR), and Dr. Celik (Ex. 1033). Dr. Celik did not
`
`provide a declaration in the ’325 IPR. The second Petition does not cite to the
`
`declarations of Dr. Reitman or Dr. Lavin in discussion of any of its proposed
`
`rejections. See generally Paper 2, 34-54. Rather, Petitioner only relies on the
`
`declaration of Dr. Celik in its proposed Grounds 1-4 in the second Petition.
`
`6.
`
`On July 29, 2014, the Board issued a Decision instituting trial in the
`
`’325 IPR only with regard to Ground 5 (anticipation by Labtec) and Ground 8
`
`(obviousness over Labtec, Birch, and Yang). IPR2014-00325, Paper 17. The Board
`
`also issued a Scheduling Order that specified October 17, 2014 as the Due Date for
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition (Due Date 1) and March 20, 2015 as the
`
`Due Date for Oral Argument (Due Date 7). IPR2014-00325, Paper 18.
`
`7.
`
`On August 26, 2014, the Board held an initial conference call with the
`
`parties during which Petitioner’s proposed motion for joinder was discussed and
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`authorized. Paper 7. The parties agreed to try to work out a mutually agreeable
`
`schedule for a potential joined proceeding but thus far have not reached an
`
`agreement.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard for Joinder
`
`The America Invents Act created inter partes review “as an efficient,
`
`streamlined, and cost-effective alternative to district court litigation.” Macronix
`
`Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Spansion, LLC, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15, 3. To further this goal,
`
`congress gave the Board authority to join like proceedings. Specifically, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c) provides (emphasis added):
`
`JOINDER. – If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`
`The decision to grant joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122. “When exercising its discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial
`
`regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Spansion, LLC, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15, 3 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.1(b)).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing it is
`
`entitled to the requested relief – joinder of this proceeding with the ’325 IPR. See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c); 42.122(b). In support of its motion for joinder, Petitioner
`
`was required to:
`
`(1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any
`new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain
`what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and
`discovery may be simplified.
`
`Paper 7, 2.
`
`III. Petitioner Failed to Meet Its Burden to Establish It Is Entitled to
`Joinder
`
`As discussed below, this proceeding raises Grounds of unpatentability that
`
`necessarily raise issues additional to those raised by the Grounds instituted upon in
`
`the ’325 IPR. Further, joinder of this proceeding with the’325 IPR would
`
`significantly impact the current trial schedule in the IPR and unfairly complicate
`
`briefing and discovery in the ’325 IPR. For at least these reasons, Patent Owner
`
`submits that joinder is not appropriate in this proceeding and, therefore, the Board
`
`should exercise its discretion and deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder. In other
`
`words, in the event trial is instituted in the present IPR, this case cannot reasonably
`
`be litigated and adjudicated within the scheduling framework of the ’325 IPR,
`
`which is on a track that is over 5 months ahead of the present case.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`The Second Petition Presents New Grounds of Unpatentability
`that Raise New Issues for Trial
`
`A.
`
`In its Preliminary Response (concurrently submitted herewith as Paper 9),
`
`Patent Owner submits that because Grounds 1-4 in the second Petition are
`
`redundant of Grounds set forth in the first Petition and for which trial has already
`
`been instituted in the ’325 IPR, the Board should deny institution of this
`
`proceeding altogether. See generally Paper 9, 20-34. To the extent that the Board
`
`decides otherwise, i.e., decides the Grounds proposed in this proceeding are not
`
`redundant of those in the ’325 IPR, and chooses to institute trial in this proceeding,
`
`then Patent Owner submits this proceeding necessarily presents new Grounds of
`
`unpatentability, which necessarily raise new issues to be addressed.
`
`In support of its motion, Petitioner attempts to analogize this proceeding to
`
`that in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2013-00250, where the
`
`Board granted a petitioner’s motion for joinder. In granting the motion, the Board
`
`focused on the facts that (1) “[t]he only additional prior art cited in the [second]
`
`proceeding was added to address the limitations of the dependent claims”
`
`challenged in the second proceeding, and (2) the second proceeding relied upon
`
`declarations from only declarants in the first proceeding, i.e., the second
`
`proceeding did not introduce new declarants. IPR2013-00250, Paper 25, 2-3
`
`(September 3, 2013).
`
`Here, in the event that the Board institutes trial with respect to any of
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Grounds 1-4 set forth in the second Petition, this proceeding will necessarily
`
`involve entirely separate art from the art on which institution in the ’325 IPR was
`
`based and a new declarant. For example, as discussed above, the ’325 IPR was
`
`instituted only with respect to two Grounds – anticipation by Labtec and
`
`obviousness over Labtec, Birch, and Yang. Thus, regardless of whether other
`
`references were cited in the first Petition, the only references relevant in that
`
`proceeding now are Labtec, Birch, and Yang. In contrast, Grounds 1-4 in this
`
`proceeding are based on Euro-Celtique, the EMEA Study Report, the ’883
`
`Application, and Yang. Thus, each of the present Grounds 1-4 necessarily includes
`
`art not was not relied on in any Ground on which trial was instituted in the ’325
`
`IPR. Specifically, Petitioner neither cited to nor listed Euro-Celtique (primary
`
`reference in every ground in this proceeding) or the ’883 Application in any
`
`Ground for trial that was instituted in the ’325 IPR. Indeed, only proposed Ground
`
`4 of this proceeding – obviousness in view of Euro-Celtique, the EMEA Study
`
`Report, and Yang – includes a single common reference with the ’325 IPR – Yang.
`
`Additionally, unlike in Ariosa, each Ground proposed in this proceeding
`
`substantially relies on a declaration (Ex. 1033) from Dr. Celik, who was not a
`
`declarant in the ’325 IPR. Further, while Petitioner submits declarations of Dr.
`
`Lavin and Dr. Reitman in both proceedings, Petitioner does not rely on those
`
`declarations in support of any Ground of rejection in this proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Petitioner also relies on ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00286,
`
`Paper 14, 3-4 (Aug. 9, 2013), in support of its motion for joinder. There, the Board
`
`granted such a motion because, inter alia, “joinder introduce[d] only two pieces of
`
`new prior art (both of which are exhibits in [the first proceeding].” Paper 6, 8-9.
`
`Again, the facts in ABB are very different from those in this proceeding. For
`
`example, there, the first proceeding was instituted as to a single Ground of
`
`obviousness – “Gertz, Stewart, and Morrow.” ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`
`IPR2013-00074, Paper 17, 18 (April 18, 2013). The Ground proposed in the
`
`second proceeding simply added two additional references (both of which were
`
`exhibits in the first proceeding) to the Ground in the first proceeding – obviousness
`
`in view of “Gertz, Stewart, Morrow, Brockschmidt, and Architect.” IPR2013-
`
`00286, Paper 14, 2. Thus, the unitary joined Ground (the same Ground was merely
`
`expanded upon) was still based on the only three references (including the primary
`
`reference) of the first proceeding. Here, on the other hand, any Ground joined to
`
`the ’325 IPR would necessarily include at least a new primary reference (Euro-
`
`Celtique). Another distinction between this proceeding and ABB is that, there, the
`
`patent owner “d[id] not oppose the motion for joinder,” which the Board
`
`considered in its determination to grant the motion. Id. at 4. Here, to the contrary,
`
`Patent Owner opposes joinder of these proceedings.
`
`Petitioner also argues that joinder is appropriate because it will somehow
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`moot arguments that Patent Owner will make in the ’325 IPR. Specifically,
`
`Petitioner alleges that: (1) “[j]oinder will moot Patent Owner’s new and
`
`unexpected line of argument that the prior art is not enabling” because Euro-
`
`Celtique or the ’883 Application purportedly are enabling, Paper 6, 9, and (2)
`
`“joinder will preclude Patent Owner from pursuing its meritless argument that [a
`
`certain claimed feature] was not disclosed” because that feature purportedly is
`
`disclosed in the EMEA Study Report, id. at 10.
`
`Petitioner’s argument is entirely misplaced. Indeed, whether Euro-Celtique,
`
`the ’883 Application, or the EMEA Study Report (none of which are used in
`
`Grounds instituted on in the ’325 IPR) disclose and/or enable certain claimed
`
`features does not necessarily bear or have preclusive effect on arguments Patent
`
`Owner will make regarding the teachings of Labtec, Birch, and Yang (the only
`
`references relied on in Grounds instituted in the ’325 IPR). In other words, even
`
`assuming, arguendo, that the EMEA Study Report discloses a certain claim
`
`limitation of Claim 15, Patent Owner would not be precluded from arguing that
`
`Claim 15 is not obvious over Labtec, Birch, and Yang because those references
`
`fail to disclose that limitation. Rather, joinder would simply complicate these
`
`proceedings further because Patent Owner would still make all of the same
`
`arguments it would have made in the ’325 IPR, but Patent Owner will also make
`
`new arguments addressing the new issues presented by the new Grounds, art, and
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`
`declarant in this proceeding.
`
`Because this proceeding introduces new Grounds of unpatentability, new art,
`
`and new declarants, Patent Owner submits that joinder of this proceeding with the
`
`’325 IPR is not appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Will Significantly Impact the Current Trial Schedule in
`the ’325 IPR and Unfairly Prejudice Patent Owner
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, joinder of this proceeding with the ’325
`
`IPR would make it impossible to complete the ’325 IPR within one year from
`
`institution. While the Board may adjust the timing of a final determination in the
`
`case of joinder, 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11), the Board still exercises discretion in joining
`
`cases “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”
`
`IPR2014-00898, Paper 15, 3; see also Macronix Asia Limited v. Spansion LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00898, Paper 15, 5 (denying joinder where “[u]nder either of the parties’
`
`proposed schedules, joinder would have a significant adverse impact on our ability
`
`to complete the existing proceeding in a timely manner, which weighs against
`
`granting the motion for joinder”).
`
`The second Petition was filed more than five months after the first Petition,
`
`and thus, this proceeding is fully 5 months behind the ’325 IPR. See SDI Tech.,
`
`Inc. v. Bose Corp., IPR2014-00346, Paper 15, 4-5 (denying joinder where “the trial
`
`schedules in the two cases are out of synchronization by roughly six months [such
`
`that i]t would not be practical to join or consolidate the instant case with [the first
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`proceeding] without moving the date for the oral hearing, an outcome neither the
`
`parties, nor the Board, desires”). While Petitioner is correct that, in Ariosa,
`
`proceedings initiated over six months apart were still able to be joined without
`
`significantly impacting the trial schedule, as pointed out above, the facts in Ariosa
`
`were significantly different than the facts here. For example, in Ariosa, the joined
`
`Ground was based on the same primary reference as the first proceeding and was
`
`supported by the same declarants as in the first proceeding. The overwhelming
`
`similarities between the first and second proceeding meant that joinder added little,
`
`if any, complexity to the first proceeding, such that a very compressed trial
`
`schedule was possible without prejudicing either party. On the other hand, here,
`
`each new Ground is based on a different primary reference (Euro-Celtique) than
`
`the Grounds on which trial was instituted in the ’325 IPR (Labtec). Further, each
`
`new Ground is supported by a new declarant (Dr. Celik), who provided no
`
`declaration in the ’325 IPR. Due to these significant substantive differences
`
`between the ’325 IPR and this proceeding, joinder of the proceedings would
`
`severely prejudice Patent Owner if it required a condensed trial schedule.
`
`Additionally, while Petitioner is correct that Patent Owner “already
`
`indicated that it will not move to amend the challenged claims,” Paper 6, 12, Patent
`
`Owner indicated it would not amend based on Grounds instituted in the ’325 IPR.
`
`Patent Owner cannot make a similar promise in this proceeding at this point.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`Whether Patent Owner will choose to amend will be a strategic decision Patent
`
`Owner will need to evaluate based on a variety of factors.
`
`Joinder Will Further Complicate Briefing and Discovery
`C.
`Joinder of this proceeding with the ’325 IPR will not simplify discovery and
`
`briefing. Indeed, both briefing and discovery will be more complicated from both
`
`substantive and timing perspectives.
`
`Briefs in the joined proceedings have to address new substantive issues. As
`
`discussed above, each Ground raised in the second Petition is based on a separate
`
`primary reference as compared to the Grounds instituted on in the ’325 IPR. Thus,
`
`in addition to each argument for patentability Patent Owner will make regarding
`
`the proposed rejections based on Labtec (primary reference in the instituted
`
`Grounds of the ’325 IPR), Patent Owner would also be required to make
`
`arguments addressing one or more Grounds based on Euro-Celtique (primary
`
`reference in each Ground in the second Petition).
`
`Briefing in the joined proceedings would also be more complicated due to
`
`the timing of the trial schedule. The scheduling order currently indicated that the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response in the ’325 IPR is due on October 17th, making it likely
`
`that Patent Owner would have already filed its Response in the ’325 IPR prior to a
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`decision on institution or joinder in this proceeding.2 Therefore, joinder would
`
`result in Patent Owner filing two separate Patent Owner responses – the second to
`
`address new Grounds instituted in this proceeding. Additionally, the timing of the
`
`briefing schedule could be further complicated in the event that Patent Owner
`
`decides to file a motion to amend in this proceeding based on new Grounds
`
`instituted.
`
`Discovery is also further complicated by joining the proceedings. For
`
`example, each new Ground in the second Petition is supported by a declaration of
`
`Dr. Celik, thus requiring additional discovery (a deposition) not necessary in the
`
`’325 IPR. Additionally, in the event that Patent Owner should depose Dr. Lavin
`
`and Dr. Reitman, those depositions would occur in all likelihood prior to the
`
`Board’s decision on whether to institute on any of the Grounds presented in this
`
`proceeding. See Macronix Asia Limited v. Spansion LLC, IPR 2014-00898, Paper
`
`15, 5 (denying joinder where the first proceeding was “already well underway,
`
`with Patent Owner having cross-examined Petitioner’s Declarant and filed its
`
`2 The parties have agreed to modify Due Date 1 in the ’325 IPR to November 7,
`
`2014, although a stipulation has not yet been filed. Even when Due Date 1 is
`
`pushed back to November 7, 2014, the Board is still unlikely to decide on
`
`institution and joinder prior to that date.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`
`Response”).
`
`Finally, Petitioner’s contentions that joinder is appropriate so that the Board
`
`doesn’t have to “consider . . . issues twice” is without merit. Paper 6, 14. The
`
`Board has previously denied joinder in a similar situation even though similar
`
`claims and claim constructions were present but different art was cited in the
`
`second proceeding. See SAP America, Inc. v. PI-Net Int’l, Inc., CBM2014-00018,
`
`Paper 16, 3. There, the Board simply “applie[d] the same claim constructions [in
`
`the second proceeding] as those [it] applied in [the first proceeding].” Id. Further,
`
`the Board, stated, “[w]hile our final decision in [the second] proceeding may be
`
`informed by our analysis in the [first] proceeding[], our consideration of
`
`additional prior art in this proceeding can proceed independently.” Id. (emphasis
`
`added). Likewise, here, the Board’s final decision in this proceeding could be
`
`informed by a final decision in the ’325 IPR while still independently considering
`
`the new art, e.g., Euro-Celtique, presented in this proceeding.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least these reasons, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board
`
`exercise its discretion and deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder.
`
`Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/James M. Bollinger/
`James M. Bollinger, Reg. No. 32,555
`Daniel A. Ladow, pro hac vice pending
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00998
`Patent No. 8,475,832
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder was served electronically
`
`via email on October 1, 2014, on attorneys for Petitioner:
`
`Danielle L. Herritt
`Kia L. Freeman
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`dherritt@mccarter.com
`IPR832@mccarter.com
`
`Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`/James M. Bollinger/
`James M. Bollinger
`Reg. No. 32,555
`
`16
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
