`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 79
`Entered April 28, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`1 Cases IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980, and IPR2015-01981 have been
`joined with IPR2015-00643, IPR2015-00644, and IPR2015-00830,
`respectively. This order addresses issues that are common to each
`referenced case. We exercise our discretion to issue a single order to be
`filed in each case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70 and the Scheduling Order (Paper 142),
`both sides timely requested oral hearing. Papers 68, 70. The parties’
`requests for oral hearing are granted.
`Time and Format
`Oral arguments for the referenced cases will be consolidated into one
`hearing, and will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time on May 12, 2016.
`Each side will have a total of 60 minutes to present arguments during the
`consolidated hearing. Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of proof that the
`claims at issue in these reviews are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioners will
`open the hearing by presenting its case regarding the challenged claims for
`which the Board instituted trial.3 Patent Owner will then respond to
`Petitioners’ arguments. Petitioners may reserve rebuttal time to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. There will be
`only one transcript, which will be entered into each case. If an argument is
`not applicable to all cases, the presenter should clearly state which case the
`argument is directed to.
`
`
`2 For ease of reference, paper numbers cited in this Order refer to those filed
`in IPR2015-00643. Similar papers were filed in the other proceedings.
`3 As per our decisions joining cases IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980, and
`IPR2015-01981 with IPR2015-00643, IPR2015-00644, and IPR2015-00830,
`respectively, we expect Petitioners to present a single argument on behalf of
`all Petitioners. See, e.g., IPR2015-01976, Paper 9, 3–4 (PTAB Dec. 28,
`2015).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)
`
`
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance, which
`will be accommodated on a first come, first served basis. The parties are
`reminded that certain confidential information previously has been sealed
`under a Protective Order entered in these proceedings (Paper 51). Papers 52,
`60, 61. The parties are advised to not include any such sealed information in
`the demonstrative exhibits or specifically refer to it in the arguments.
`Alternatively, the party originally moved to seal the information may waive
`its request and choose to disclose and rely on the information during the oral
`argument.
`
`Demonstratives
` Demonstrative exhibits shall be served on opposing counsel at least
`five business days before the hearing. Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(b), each party shall, instead of filing, provide a courtesy copy of the
`demonstrative exhibits to the Board at least five business days prior to the
`hearing by emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov.
`Any argument presented in the demonstrative exhibits must be
`supported by evidence already of record. The demonstrative exhibits,
`however, are not evidence. Instead, they are intended to assist the parties in
`presenting their oral arguments to the Board. Also, the demonstrative
`exhibits are not a mechanism for making arguments not previously
`presented. The panel will not consider arguments or evidence appearing
`only in demonstrative exhibits.
`Due to the nature of the demonstrative exhibits, the panel does not
`anticipate that objections to such exhibits would likely be sustained.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)
`
`Nevertheless, to the extent that there is any objection to the propriety of the
`demonstrative exhibits, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to
`resolve any issue. If the parties cannot resolve the issues regarding the
`demonstrative exhibits on their own, the objecting party may file a one-page
`list of its objections to the demonstrative exhibits with the Board at least two
`business days before the hearing. The objecting party should identify with
`particularity which portions of the demonstrative exhibits it objects to, and
`include a one-sentence statement of the reason for each objection. No
`argument or further explanation is permitted. The panel will schedule a
`conference call if deemed necessary. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived.
`The parties are advised that at least one member of the panel will be
`attending the hearing from a remote location. The parties are reminded that
`each 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 and the ability of
`the judge participating remotely to follow the presenter’s arguments.
`Lead Counsel
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`hearing. Any counsel of record, however, may present the party’s argument.
`If either party anticipates that its lead counsel is unable to attend the oral
`argument, the parties should initiate a joint conference call with the Board
`no later than two business days prior to the hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)
`
`
`Audio/Visual Equipment Requests
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment must be sent to Trials@uspto.gov at least five business days
`prior to the hearing date. If the request is not received timely, the
`equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey Guise
`jguise@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Brandon White
`BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Shannon Bloodworth
`SBloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`
`David Anstaett
`DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Elizabeth Holland
`eholland@goodwinprocter.com
`
`William James
`wjames@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Eleanor Yost
`eyost@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`