IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)1
`__________________
`
`BEFORE FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and GRACE
`KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
`PURSUANT TO ORDER 9
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v .
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., BAUSCH & LOMB, INC., and
`BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMA HOLDINGS CORP.
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431 B2)1
`__________________
`
`BEFORE FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and GRACE
`KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges
`
`PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER
`PURSUANT TO ORDER 9
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`InnoPharma Licensing Inc., InnoPharma Licensing LLC, InnoPharma Inc.,
`
`InnoPharma LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mylan Inc. (collectively
`
`“InnoPharma”) hereby respectfully submits this Proposed Scheduling Order in
`
`accordance with the Board’s Order entered April 17, 2015. (Paper Nos. 9, 9).2
`
`InnoPharma’s Proposed Scheduling Order would extend the currently
`
`schedule date for oral argument in the Metrics IPR Nos. 2014-01041 and 2014-
`
`01043 minimally.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). The
`
`proposed extension should cause minimal prejudice to Metrics, Inc., Mayne
`
`Pharma,
`
`and Johnson Matthey,
`
`Inc.
`
`(collectively,
`
`“Metrics”) or Senju
`
`Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bausch & Lomb, Inc., and Bausch & Lomb Pharma
`
`Holdings Corp. (collectively “Senju”).
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, citations to the paper numbers refer to filings and
`orders in IPR2015-00902 and IPR2015-00903, respectively.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`IPR2014-01041 &
`01043
`June 26, 2014
`November 20, 2014
`
`February 19, 2015
`
`N/A
`
`IPR2015-00902 & 00903
`(proposed schedule)
`N/A
`
`March 19, 2015
`March 19, 2015
`
`May 19, 2015
`
`May 26, 2015
`
`May 26, 2015
`
`June 9, 2015
`
`Dates
`
`Petition date (Metrics)
`PO preliminary response to
`Metrics petition
`Decision of institution on
`Metrics petition
`Petition date (InnoPharma)
`Motion for joinder by
`InnoPharma
`InnoPharma to file proposed
`scheduling order
`PO preliminary response to
`InnoPharma petition
`
`PO opposition to motion for
`joinder
`Metrics opposition to
`InnoPharma motion for joinder
`and proposed scheduling order
`InnoPharma consolidated reply
`to opposition to motion for
`joinder
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`IPR2014-01041 &
`01043
`
`IPR2015-00902 & 00903
`(proposed schedule)
`July 27, 20153,4
`
`June 26, 2015
`
`September 25, 2015
`
`September 18, 2015 November 25, 2015
`
`Dates
`
`Decision of institution on
`InnoPharma petition
`
`Ruling on motion for joinder
`PO’s response to the petition
`
`PO’s motion to amend the
`patent
`
`(Due Date 1)
`Petitioner’s reply to PO’s
`response to petition
`
`Opposition to motion to amend
`
`(Due Date 2)
`
`3 See EX2001, Transcript of Teleconference dated April 15, 2015, 36:15-37:1 (the
`
`Board explaining to the parties that although the Decision to Institute is due on
`
`August 26, the Board was willing to get it out earlier, so long as it was not before
`
`June 26th (“I could get them out earlier if we propose a schedule where I have to
`
`get the decisions to institute -- I don't see myself getting them out before June
`
`26th.”)).
`
`4 In the event the Board issues its Decision to Institute on August 26, then
`
`InnoPharma proposes that all of the corresponding dates will be pushed back by
`
`one month (with accommodations made if a Due Date falls on a weekend or a
`
`Federal Holiday).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`IPR2014-01041 &
`01043
`October 8, 2015
`
`IPR2015-00902 & 00903
`(proposed schedule)
`December 21, 20155
`
`October 8, 2015
`
`December 21, 2015
`
`October 22, 2015
`
`January 7, 2016
`
`October 29, 2015
`
`January 14, 2016
`
`November 12, 2015
`
`January 21, 2016
`
`Dates
`
`PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s
`opposition to motion to amend
`
`(Due Date 3)
`Motion for observation
`regarding cross-examination of
`reply witness
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`(Due Date 4)
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to
`exclude
`
`(Due Date 5)
`Reply to opposition to motion
`to exclude
`
`(Due Date 6)
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`(Due Date 7)
`
`5 Due Date 3 and Due Date 4 fall on the same date, similar to the stipulation
`between Metrics and Senju in IPR Nos. 2014-01041 and 2014-01043, Paper 33.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`Date: May 19, 2015
`
`/s/Jitendra Malik
`
`Jitendra Malik (Reg. No. 55823)
`4721Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
`Durham, North Carolina 27703
`Telephone: 919-862-2200
`Fax: 919-862-2260
`Jitty.Malik@alston.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`InnoPharma Licensing Inc., InnoPharma
`Licensing LLC, InnoPharma Inc.,
`InnoPharma LLC, Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mylan Inc.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 19th day
`
`of May 2015, a complete copy of the foregoing “PROPOSED SCHEDULING
`
`ORDER” was served via email on counsel of record for the Patent Owner:
`
`Bryan C. Diner
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`M. Andrew Holtman
`andy.holtman@finnegan.com
`
`Justin J. Hasford
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`
`Jonathan R. Stroud
`jonathan.stroud@finnegan.com
`
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via email on counsel
`
`of record for the Petitioner in Metrics, Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,
`
`IPR2014-01041 and IPR2014-01043 as follows:
`
`Patrick D. McPherson
`PDMcPherson@duanemorris.com
`
`Vincent L. Capuano
`VCapuano@duanemorris.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Alston & Bird LLP
`
`By: /Jitendra Malik/
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-00903 (Patent 8,129,431)
`
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 55823
`Alston & Bird LLP
`4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
`Durham, NC 27703-8580
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 50893
`Alston & Bird LLP
`4721 Emperor Blvd., Suite 400
`Durham, NC 27703-8580
`bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`Reg. No. 65405
`Alston & Bird LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`15th Floor
`New York, NY 10016-1387
`lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc.,
`InnoPharma Licensing LLC,
`InnoPharma Inc., InnoPharma
`LLC, Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`Inc., and Mylan Inc.
`
`7
`
`
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
