`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 27
`
`Entered: October 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DECISION
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (“Patent Owner”) filed a Motion for
`Additional Discovery (“Motion”) from Coalition for Affordable Drugs II LLC
`(“Petitioner”) regarding whether the Petitions at issue should have identified
`additional parties (i.e., other “Funders”) as being real parties-in-interest.
`IPR2015-00990, Paper 9; IPR2015-01093, Paper 8 (“Mot.”). We granted, in
`part, Patent Owner’s Motion authorizing
`additional discovery only as to any agreements, in the
`possession of Petitioner, relating to the control or ability to
`control any aspect of the current proceeding by a party not
`designated as Petitioner or a real party-in-interest in the
`Petition. Such agreements include those indicating that any
`person or party (other than Petitioner or designated real parties-
`in-interest) provided direction to, or had the authority to
`provide direction to, Petitioner or its counsel in relation to this
`proceeding, including persons or parties who reviewed, or were
`given the opportunity to review, papers filed in this proceeding.
`IPR2015-00990, Paper 14; IPR2015-01093, Paper 13 (“Order”).
`Patent Owner filed a request for rehearing of the Order. (Paper 29,
`“Request”). The request for rehearing is denied.
`ANALYSIS
`When rehearing an interlocutory decision, a panel will review the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b). Patent Owner’s
`Request does not set forth any argument attempting to establish that we
`abused our discretion. Rather, Patent Owner merely requests that we broaden
`the scope of additional discovery to include agreements related to the funding
`of the current proceeding and reargues positions set forth in its Motion.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the
`Board’s decision limiting additional discovery to agreements relevant to the
`control of these proceedings constitutes an abuse of discretion.
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Patent
`Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`3