throbber
Paper 8
`Entered: June 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`(Patent 7,056,886 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The parties
`are authorized to use this style heading when filing a single paper in each
`proceeding, provided that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the
`word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`heading.”
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`
`On May 29, 2015, Judges Snedden, Green, and Bonilla conducted a
`
`conference call with respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
` Patent Owner requested the call to seek authorization to file a motion
`
`for additional discovery. During the call, Patent Owner contended that the
`
`Petitioner failed to name all relevant investors and identify them as real
`
`parties-in-interest (RPI). Patent Owner contended that Petitioner’s
`
`undisclosed investors are real parties-in-interest because those undisclosed
`
`investors provided the funds for the Petitions and stand to gain or lose
`
`depending on an outcome in the cases.
`
`During the call, Petitioner responded that the Petitions identify a
`
`number of RPIs, and that no other entity has the authority to control the
`
`proceedings or is obligated to fund expenses associated with the Petitions.
`
`After hearing the respective positions of the parties, the panel conferred
`
`and concluded that additional briefing was warranted. The panel authorized
`
`Patent Owner to file a motion for additional discovery of no more than 15
`
`pages due by June 3, 2015. The panel also authorized Petitioner to file an
`
`opposition to the motion, also of no more than 15 pages due by June 10, 2015.
`
`Patent Owner was authorized to file a reply to the opposition of no more than
`
`5 pages due by June 15, 2015.
`
`In authorizing the filing of the motion, the panel cautioned Patent
`
`Owner that a motion for additional discovery is unlikely to be granted if it is
`
`unduly broad and encompasses numerous documents that are irrelevant to the
`
`RPI issue. We refer the parties to Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Technologies LLC., Case No. IPR2012-00001 (PTAB March 5, 2013) (Paper
`
`26), as laying out factors that we will consider in deciding whether to grant
`
`Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery. We also point the parties to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`additional guidance in the following cases: Dr. Farmwald and RPX Corp. v.
`
`Parkervision, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00946 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper
`
`25); VMware, Inc. v. Good Technology Software, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-
`
`01324 (PTAB Dec. 5, 2014) (Paper 25); Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Case No.
`
`IPR2014-01254 (PTAB Nov. 25, 2014) (Paper 15); Unified Patents Inc. v.
`
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-01252 (PTAB Feb.
`
`17, 2015) (Paper 39). For additional guidance on real party-in-interest
`
`generally, see, e.g., Aruze Gaming Macau, LTD v. MGT Gaming, Inc., Case
`
`No. IPR2014-01288, slip op. at 5–20 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 13); TRW
`
`Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics Inc., Case No. IPR2014-01497,
`
`slip op. at 6–11 (PTAB Mar. 19, 2015) (Paper 7); Shopkick Inc. v. Novitaz,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2015-00279, slip op. at 10–15 (PTAB May 29, 2015) (Paper 7).
`
`Patent Owner, in its motion, should identify specifically what discovery
`
`it requests and include a showing as to why the discovery of each item is in
`
`the interest of justice. Moreover, a party requesting discovery should already
`
`be in possession of some evidence to show beyond mere speculation that
`
`something useful will be uncovered. A request for additional discovery
`
`should not encompass publicly available information that the party has the
`
`ability to obtain without the need for discovery.
`
`
`
`It is:
`
` ORDERED, that Patent Owner is authorized to file a motion for
`
`additional discovery. The motion is to be no more than 15 pages, and is due
`
`no later than June 3, 2015;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`
` FURTHER ORDERD, that Petitioner may file an opposition to the
`
`motion for additional discovery. The opposition is to be no more than 15
`
`pages, and is due no later than June 10, 2015; and
`
` FURTHER ORDERED, that Patent Owner is authorized to file a reply
`
`to the opposition. The reply is to be no more than 5 pages, and is due no later
`
`than June 15, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`Matthew L. Fedowitz
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Joseph R. Robinson
`Heather Morehouse Ettinger
`Dustin B. Weeks
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`joseph.robinson@troutmansanders.com
`heather.ettinger@troutmansanders.com
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket