`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00990
`Patent 7,056,886
`
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO DEEM THE FILING OF PATENT
`OWNER’S EXHIBITS 2042-2055, 2057-2074, & 2076-2147 AS TIMELY
`
`
`
`I. Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`
`Patent Owner NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“NPS”) requests the Board to
`
`deem the filing of Exhibits 2042-2055, 2057-2074, & 2076-2147 (“the Public
`
`Exhibits”) filed in support of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 33) as timely.1
`
`Petitioner has advised that it does not oppose this motion.
`
`II. Statement of Material Facts
`
`1.
`
`Matthew Hu, NPS counsel’s paralegal, began filing NPS’s Response
`
`and Ex. 2040-2149 on January 20, 2016, at about 11:30 p.m.. Ex. 2151, ¶ 2.
`
`2.
`
`Realizing that the filing would not be completed prior to the 12:00
`
`a.m. deadline, NPS’s counsel instructed Mr. Hu to proceed first with filing (1) the
`
`Response, (2) supporting expert declarations (Ex. 2040, 2041 (unredacted) and Ex.
`
`2148, 2149 (redacted), (3) confidential material filed under seal (Ex. 2056, 2075),
`
`(4) Patent Owner’s Combined Motion to File Under Seal and for Entry of
`
`Protective Order, and (5) the Protective Order (Ex. 20502) so that all non-public
`
`documents were timely filed. Id. at ¶ 3-4.
`
`3.
`
`Mr. Hu completed filing the documents in ¶ 2 prior to 12:00 a.m. on
`
`1 Patent Owner is filing a similar motion in related proceeding IPR2015-01093.
`
`2 Patent Owner has since realized that the Protective Order was inadvertently
`
`labeled and filed as Ex. 2050, but it was referenced in the Motion as Ex. 2150.
`
`Patent Owner, therefore, requests that the Board renumber Ex. 2050 as Ex. 2150.
`
`1
`
`
`
`January 21, 2016. Id. at ¶ 5; Ex. 2152; Ex. 2153; Ex. 2154.
`
`4.
`
`NPS’s counsel then instructed Mr. Hu to file the corresponding
`
`documents in IPR2015-01093 to ensure timely filing there. Ex. 2151, ¶ 6.
`
`5.
`
`Mr. Hu completed the filing of these documents prior to 12:00 a.m. on
`
`January 21, 2016, with the exception that the redacted declarations in IPR2015-
`
`01093 were filed at 12:02 a.m. Id. at ¶ 7; Ex. 2155; Ex. 2156; Ex. 2157.
`
`6.
`
`Once the documents described above in ¶ 2 & 4 were filed, NPS’s
`
`counsel then instructed Mr. Hu to file the Public Exhibits in both IPRs. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`7.
`
`Mr. Hu completed the filing of the Public Exhibits in IPR2015-00990,
`
`which took more than two hours and required separating certain exhibits into
`
`multiple parts due to size constraints at the Board’s site, at 2:25 a.m. on January
`
`21, 2016. Id. at ¶ 9-10.; Ex. 2159.
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Hu completed the filing of the Public Exhibits in IPR2015-01093
`
`at approximately 3:50 a.m. on January 21, 2016; Id. at ¶ 12; Ex. 2158.
`
`9.
`
`Patent Owner has indicated it does not oppose the requested relief.
`
`III.
`
`Statement of Reasons for Relief Requested
`
`NPS began filing its Response, Motion, and associated exhibits prior to the
`
`filing deadline. Further, NPS timely filed its Response, Motion, and all non-
`
`publicly available exhibits associated therewith. Unfortunately, the filing of the
`
`Public Exhibits was not completed for approximately two and half hours in
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990 and three hours and fifty minutes in IPR2015-01093 after the
`
`filing deadline. The Public Exhibits in both IPRs are identical.
`
`This late filing did not, result in any prejudice to Petitioner; indeed,
`
`Petitioner does not oppose this motion. On January 21, 2016, NPS provided
`
`Petitioner with an electronic drop box containing copies of all filings and mailed
`
`via overnight delivery hard copies of all filings, after a discussion with Petitioner’s
`
`counsel, in order to mitigate any possibility of prejudice to Petitioner. Ex. 2151,
`
`¶13-14; Ex. 2160, ¶ 2-3. NPS’s counsel also told Petitioner’s counsel that if
`
`Petitioner perceived any prejudice, NPS would agree to an equivalent extension for
`
`Petitioner’s responsive filing now due April 4, 2016. Ex. 2160, ¶ 4. Petitioner’s
`
`counsel responded that such an extension may be requested since Petitioner’s
`
`response is due the Monday after The 94th Annual Dinner in Honor of the Federal
`
`Judiciary on Friday, April 1, 2016, at the Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel, which
`
`will be likely attended by many members of the judiciary (including members of
`
`the Board) and possibly Petitioner’s counsel. Id. at ¶ 5. On the other hand, the
`
`Board’s failure to consider the Public Exhibits, which support arguments and
`
`testimony in the Response and associated expert declarations, respectively, would
`
`result in severe prejudice to NPS. Accordingly, NPS submits that it is in the
`
`interest of justice for the Board to deem the Public Exhibits as being timely.
`
`The filing deadline for a patent owner response is not a statutory
`
`3
`
`
`
`requirement but rather an intermediate one that was implemented by the Board’s
`
`Scheduling Order and subsequently modified per the parties’ stipulation. See
`
`Papers 29, 31. Accordingly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) permits the Board to excuse
`
`NPS’s late filing “upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be
`
`in the interests of justice.” In considering the totality of the circumstances to
`
`determine whether the interests of justice support excusing a late action, the Board
`
`weighs the actual prejudice to the non-filing party with the prejudice to the filing
`
`party by not considering the documents. See Universal Remote Control, Inc. v.
`
`Universal Electronics, Inc., IPR2014-1102, Paper 26, 2 (“Upon weighing the
`
`prejudice to the Patent Owner of the one day late filing versus the prejudice to the
`
`Petitioner if we do not consider, on the merits, the replies and exhibits, we
`
`determine that it is in the interests of justice to consider the late-filed documents”);
`
`Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00148, Paper 19, 3
`
`(granting opposed timeliness motion after weighing prejudice to petitioner from a
`
`minimal filing delay against prejudice to patent owner of not considering its
`
`response); Callidus Software Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. et al., CBM2013-
`
`00052, Paper 39, 2 (accepting late-filed documents based on the interests of justice
`
`because any prejudice caused by one-day delay in filing is outweighed by the
`
`prejudice to the filer); Pacific Market International, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00561, Paper 40, 3-4 (granted timeliness motion after balancing the
`
`4
`
`
`
`“severe prejudice” to the filing party with “essentially no prejudice” to the other.)
`
`Here, as in the cases above, Petitioner is not prejudiced by the late filing of
`
`the Public Exhibits. Further, NPS took steps to mitigate any potential prejudice by
`
`ensuring the substantive and non-public documents were timely-filed and that only
`
`public information was delayed by (1) immediately conferring with Petitioner’s
`
`counsel, (2) providing Petitioner with copies of the filings in electronic and hard
`
`copy formats, and (3) agreeing to any request for an equivalent extension for
`
`Petitioner’s Reply. NPS, however, would suffer severe prejudice if the Board does
`
`not consider the Public Exhibits, which provide support for compelling arguments
`
`and testimony in NPS’s Response, Motion, and accompanying declarations that are
`
`directly relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. These exhibits are
`
`essential evidence that the Board should consider and upon which Patent Owner
`
`has relied. Any inability of the Board to consider this evidence would contravene
`
`justice, especially because Petitioner neither opposed this motion nor suffered any
`
`prejudice by the delay a few hours of publicly available exhibits.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`deem the filing of the Public Exhibits as timely. NPS sincerely regrets any
`
`inconvenience to the Board and the Petitioner caused by the brief delay and, in the
`
`future, NPS will allocate ample time for filings.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: January 29, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Joseph R. Robinson/
`Joseph R. Robinson, PTO Reg. No. 33,448
`Heather M. Ettinger, PTO Reg. No. 51,658
`Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Combined Motion to Deem the Filing of Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2042-
`
`2055, 2057-2074, & 2076-2147 as Timely, and associated exhibits were served via
`
`electronic mail on January 29, 2015 on attorney for Petitioner:
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: January 29, 2015
`
`/Dustin B. Weeks/
`Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466