`
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`Joseph M. Reisman
`Jay R. Deshmukh
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`Ph.: (949) 760-0404
`E-mail: BoxMylan@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG AND LTS LOHMANN THERAPIE-SYSTEME AG,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent 6,316,023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C §§ 315(C),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(B)
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) submits concurrently herewith a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,316,023 (“the ’023 Patent”)
`
`(“Petition”) based on identical grounds that form the basis for pending IPR
`
`proceeding, Case No. IPR2014-00549 (“the Noven IPR”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c), Mylan respectfully moves that this Petition be instituted, and that the
`
`present IPR be joined with the Noven IPR.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`Novartis AG and LTS Lohmann Therapie-Systeme AG (“Patent Owners”)
`
`are the owners of the ’023 Patent. On June 19, 2014, Patent Owners filed suit
`
`against Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. for infringement of the ’023
`
`Patent in Delaware, 1:14-cv-00777 (D. Del.); on June 20, 2014, Patent Owners also
`
`filed suit against Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. for infringement of
`
`the ’023 Patent in West Virginia, 1:14-cv-00106 (N.D. W.Va.) (collectively, “the
`
`Mylan Litigations”).
`
`Patent Owners have filed two suits against Noven for infringement of the
`
`’023 Patent: Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Noven Pharm. Inc., 1:13-cv-00527 (D.
`
`Del.); and Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Noven Pharm. Inc., 1:14-cv-00111 (D.
`
`Del.) (collectively, “the Noven Litigations”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`
`The ’023 Patent is also being asserted in the following patent infringement
`
`lawsuits: Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-01077 (D.
`
`Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Watson Labs. Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-01112 (D.
`
`Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook Inc. et al., 1:13-cv-
`
`00052 (D. Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Alvogen Pine Brook Inc. et al.,
`
`1:13-cv-00370 (D. Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Actavis, Inc. et al., No.
`
`1:13-cv-00371 (D. Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al., No.
`
`1:13-cv-01467 (D. Del.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Zydus Noveltech Inc. et
`
`al., No. 1:14-cv-05405 (D. N.J.); Novartis Pharm. Corp. et al. v. Zydus Noveltech
`
`Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-01104 (D. Del.); Par Pharm. Inc. et al. v. Novartis Pharm.
`
`Corp. et al., 1:14-cv-00843 (D. Del.); Watson Labs Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp et
`
`al., 14-1799 (C.A.F.C.); Novartis Pharm. Corp et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al, 15-
`
`1061 (C.A.F.C.); Novartis Pharm. Corp et al. v. Par Pharm. Inc. et al, 15-1062
`
`(C.A.F.C.); Par Pharm. Inc. v. Novartis Pharm Corp. et al., 15-1120 (C.A.F.C.);
`
`and Par Pharm. Inc. v. Novartis Pharm Corp. et al., 15-1121 (C.A.F.C.).
`
`Noven filed its petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’023 Patent in the
`
`Noven IPR on April 2, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Board instituted trial on all
`
`proposed grounds of invalidity. See IPR2014-00549, Paper No. 10 at 25. Under
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`Rule 42.122, this Motion is timely as it is filed within one month of the institution
`
`of the Noven IPR.
`
`III. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTION FOR JOINDER ARE MET
`
`In accordance with the Board’s Representative Order identifying matters to
`
`be addressed in a motion for joinder (IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 15, April 24,
`
`2013), Mylan submits that joinder is appropriate because: (1) joinder will promote
`
`efficient determination of the validity of the ’023 Patent without prejudice to
`
`Patent Owners or Noven; (2) Mylan’s petition raises the same grounds of
`
`unpatentability as the Noven IPR; (3) joinder will not affect the pending schedule
`
`in the Noven IPR nor increase the complexity of that proceeding in any way; and
`
`(4) Mylan will agree to consolidated filings with Noven to minimize burden and
`
`schedule impact.
`
`a.
`
`Joinder Will Promote the Efficient Determination of
`Validity Without Prejudice to the Patent Owners or Noven
`
`Granting joinder and allowing a consolidated IPR will not prejudice Patent
`
`Owners. Mylan raises no issues that are not already before the Board, such that
`
`joinder would not affect the timing of the IPR or the content of Patent Owners’
`
`responses. Indeed, Mylan’s Petition challenges the same claims and is based on
`
`the same grounds and same combinations of prior art considered by the Board in
`
`instituting trial in the Noven IPR. Since Mylan’s Petition does not raise any new
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`issues beyond those already considered by Patent Owners, Mylan does not
`
`anticipate that Patent Owners will need a substantial amount of time to complete
`
`its Preliminary Response, should it choose to file one. Likewise, as Mylan agrees
`
`to consolidated filings with Noven, Patent Owners will not need to coordinate
`
`with or respond to arguments by more parties than they already do.
`
`Noven also will not be prejudiced by the Board’s grant of this Motion and
`
`consolidation of Mylan’s IPR with the Noven IPR. Mylan agrees to act in a
`
`limited “understudy” role, and will assume an active lead role only in the event
`
`that Noven settles with the Patent Owners or otherwise ceases to participate.
`
`Moreover, a final written decision on the validity of the ’023 Patent will
`
`minimize issues in the Mylan Litigation, the Noven Litigation, and potentially
`
`resolve the litigation of the ’023 Patent altogether thereby promoting the efficient
`
`determination of validity. If the Board permits Mylan to join the Noven IPR, and
`
`the ’023 Patent is upheld in a final decision, Mylan will be estopped from further
`
`challenging the validity of the patent on these grounds, avoiding duplication of
`
`Patent Owner’s efforts at least as to Mylan and Noven. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(e)(1). Accordingly, to avoid duplicate efforts and promote efficiency,
`
`joinder is appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`
`b. Mylan’s Petition Raises the Same Grounds of Unpatentability as
`the Noven IPR
`
`Mylan’s Petition asserts, verbatim, the arguments that the Board has already
`
`instituted in the Noven IPR. Thus, there are no new arguments for the Board to
`
`consider or to which the Patent Owners need to respond. Further, Mylan’s Petition
`
`relies on the same expert declarations—of Drs. Kydonieus and Schöneich—that
`
`were submitted in support of the Noven IPR petition. Thus, Mylan does not
`
`anticipate the need for new expert depositions following joinder.
`
`Joinder Will Not Affect the Pending Schedule in the Noven IPR
`c.
`nor Increase the Complexity of that Proceeding
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its
`
`review in a timely manner. Section 316(a)(11) provides that IPR proceedings
`
`should be completed, and the Board’s final decision issued, within one year of
`
`institution of the review. See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Here, joinder will not
`
`affect the Board’s ability to issue its final determination within one year because
`
`Mylan does not raise any issues that are not already before the Board. Indeed,
`
`the Petition includes only those grounds on which the Noven IPR was instituted,
`
`and the invalidity grounds were copied verbatim from Noven’s petition. Mylan
`
`also agrees to consolidated filings with Noven. Thus, Mylan does not anticipate
`
`that its presence will introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or need for
`
`discovery.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - U.S. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Noven and Patent Owners recently submitted a Joint
`
`Stipulation to Modify the Scheduling Order (IPR2014-00549, Paper No. 16,
`
`Nov. 4, 2014) to extend each of Due Date 1 and Due Date 2 by four weeks, and
`
`to eliminate Due Date 3. In view of the parties’ extension of these early dates,
`
`joinder of Mylan’s IPR with the Noven IPR should have no impact on the
`
`schedule.
`
`d. Mylan Will Agree to Consolidated Filings With Noven to
`Minimize Burden and Schedule Impact
`
`As long as Noven remains an active participant in the IPR, Mylan agrees to
`
`assume a limited “understudy” role. As discussed above, Mylan offers no new
`
`grounds for invalidity and Mylan does not anticipate that its presence will
`
`introduce any additional arguments, briefing, or need for discovery. If Noven
`
`ceases to participate in the IPR, Mylan will assume the primary role of petitioner.
`
`Mylan is willing to agree to consolidated filings on the existing briefing
`
`schedule, for which Noven will maintain responsibility. (IPR2013-00256, Paper
`
`No. 10 at 9, June 20, 2013.) Similar to the procedures ordered by the Board in
`
`IPR2013-00256, Mylan is willing to be limited to separate filings, if any, of no
`
`more than seven pages directed only to points of disagreement with Noven, with
`
`the understanding that Mylan will not be permitted any separate arguments in
`
`furtherance of those advanced in Noven’s consolidated filings. (Id.) “This
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Mylan v. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder - US. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`approach should avoid introducing delay that could arise from lengthy briefing by
`
`each party, while providing the parties an opportunity to address all issues that
`
`may arise.” (Id) Mylan notes that in numerous joined IPRs, such as IPR2013-
`
`00385 (Paper No. 17) and IPR2014—00306 (Paper No. 13),
`
`the Board has
`
`similarly permitted separate filings from the joined petitioner of no more than
`
`seven pages directed only to points of disagreement with the first petitioner.
`
`Mylan requests that the Board do likewise in this matter.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Mylan respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’023 Patent be granted and that the proceedings of the
`
`present IPR be joined with IPR2014—00549.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS,‘OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`Dated: November 13 2014
`
`
`
`By: %/
`
`oseph M. Reisman
`Reg. No. 43,878
`Customer No. 20,995
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`
`(949) 760-0404
`
`
`
`Mylan V. Novartis
`Motion for Joinder — US. Pat. 6,316,023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER is being served on November 13, 2014, via FedEx Priority
`
`Overnight on counsel of record at the US. Patent and Trademark Office for US.
`
`Pat. 6,316,023, at:
`
`Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation
`Intellectual Property Department
`One Health Plaza 433/2
`
`East Hanover, NJ 0793 6—1080
`
`The Motion is also being served on November 13, 2014, via FedEx Priority
`
`Overnight, on Patent Owner counsel of record in IPR2014—00549 at:
`
`Raymond R. Mandra
`Fitzpatrick Cella, Harper & Scinto
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10104
`
`Telephone: (212) 218—2100
`Facsimile: (212) 218-2200
`
`Dated: November 13 2014 %/
`
`
`
`os ph M. Reisman
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`19251163
`
`