throbber
IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________
`
`LUPIN LIMITED
`Petitioner
`v.
`JANSSEN SCIENCES IRELAND UC
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01030
`Patent 8,518,987 B2
`________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER LUPIN LIMITED’S REPLY REGARDING
`THE IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION. .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD. .................................................................................... 1 
`
`III. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND. ......................................................................... 2 
`
`IV.  PETITIONER LUPIN LTD. IS THE REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST. .......... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Lupin Ltd. Exercises Sole Discretion and Control Here. ...................... 4 
`
`The Lupin Subsidiaries Lack a Tangible Interest in the Petition. ......... 5 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`Janssen’s evidence is insufficient to confer RPI status on
`non-parties Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis. ................................. 5 
`
`The Board’s prior decisions regarding parent and
`subsidiary relationships are distinct from the instant case.......... 9 
`
`V. 
`
`CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................. 10 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases 
`
`Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00453, slip op. (Paper 88) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015) ....................... 12, 13
`
`Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00215, slip op. (Paper 47) (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014) ............................. 9
`
`Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`IPR2014-00719, slip op. (Paper No. 11) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014) ..................... 11
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS,
`IPR2014-01422, slip op. (Paper 14) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2015) ................ 10, 11, 12
`
`Intellectual Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013) .............................................. 1
`
`Par Pharm., Inc. et al. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00546, slip op. (Paper 25) (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2015) ....................... 2, 13
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`IPR2014-00171, slip op. (Redacted Paper 49) (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2014) .............. 5
`
`TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-01499, slip op. (Paper 7) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015) ........................ 8, 11
`
`ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.,
`IPR2013-00609, slip op. (Paper 15) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2014) .................. 3, 7, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Federal Statutes 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................ 1, 2, 3, 5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order on August 14, 2015 (Paper 10), Petitioner
`
`Lupin Limited (“Lupin Ltd.”) replies to Patent Owner Janssen Sciences Ireland
`
`UC’s (“Janssen”) assertion that the above-captioned inter partes review Petition
`
`improperly failed to name Lupin Ltd.’s unrelated subsidiaries as “real parties-in-
`
`interest” (“RPIs”). Janssen has failed to show such subsidiaries qualify as RPIs.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD.
`Patent owners challenging a petitioner’s RPI disclosure must sufficiently
`
`show the disclosure is inadequate. Intellectual Ventures Mgmt., LLC v. Xilinx,
`
`Inc., IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 at 4 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013). The RPI is “the
`
`party that desires review of the patent,” and “at whose behest the petition has been
`
`filed.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`
`RPI requirement exists to ensure that a non-party is not “litigating through a
`
`proxy.” See Aruze Gaming Macau, Ltd. v. MGT Gaming, Inc., IPR2014-01288,
`
`slip op. (Paper 13) at 12 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2015) (“Aruze”). The RPI analysis is a
`
`narrowly tailored inquiry into the “relationship between a party and a proceeding,”
`
`not “the relationship between parties.” Id. at 11.
`
`Whether a party, not a named participant in a given proceeding, is a RPI to
`
`that proceeding “is a highly fact-dependent question.” Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,759; see also Par Pharm., Inc. et al. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc., IPR2015-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`00546, slip op. (Paper 25) at 14 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2015) (“Par”). Factors to
`
`consider include, inter alia, (i) whether a non-party “funds and directs and
`
`controls” an IPR petition or proceeding; (ii) the non-party’s relationship with the
`
`petitioner; (iii) the non-party’s relationship to the petition itself, including the
`
`nature and degree of involvement in the filing; and (iv) the nature of the entity
`
`filing the petition. Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760; see also Par, slip
`
`op. at 14. Mere associations with another party in an unrelated endeavor separate
`
`from an AIA proceeding does not make a party a RPI. Trial Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,760. The evidence as a whole must show that the non-party
`
`possessed effective control over the IPR proceeding. ZOLL Lifecor Corp. v.
`
`Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., IPR2013-00609, slip op. (Paper 15) at 10 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Mar. 20, 2014) (“ZOLL”).
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
`Lupin Ltd. is a parent to many subsidiaries, e.g., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`(“Lupin Pharma”), Lupin Inc., and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA (“Lupin Atlantis”).
`
`(Ex. 1093, Singh Decl. ¶ 3). Lupin Ltd.’s business is making, distributing and
`
`selling pharmaceuticals. (Id. ¶ 2). Lupin Ltd. holds all rights, title, and decision-
`
`making power for the various manufactured doses of darunavir tablets described in
`
`Lupin Ltd.’s Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 202-073 (“Lupin Ltd.’s
`
`ANDA Products”) and related amendments submitted to the Food and Drug
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`Administration (“FDA”). (Ex. 1093 ¶ 4). Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA includes, inter alia,
`
`a “Paragraph IV” certification that U.S. Patent No. 8,518,987 B2 (“the ‘987
`
`patent”) is invalid and/or would not be infringed by Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA Products.1
`
`Based on that Paragraph IV ANDA filing, Janssen has sued Lupin Ltd. and Lupin
`
`Pharma for infringement of the ‘987 patent (and other patents) seeking a
`
`declaration that Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA Products would infringe the ‘987 patent upon
`
`FDA approval of Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA. (See Paper 8 at 2-5; Paper 3 at 1-9).
`
`Despite nearly five years of litigation, Janssen has never sued either Lupin Atlantis
`
`and/or Lupin Inc. for infringement of the ‘987 patent or any other patents. (Ex.
`
`1093 ¶ 6; see also Paper 1 at 6 (referencing Civil Action No. 10-5954)).
`
`IV. PETITIONER LUPIN LTD. IS THE REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST.
`Far from being a “nominal plaintiff” with “no substantial interest,” Petitioner
`
`Lupin Ltd. is the only Lupin entity with a cognizable interest in this Petition.2,3
`
`1 Janssen sued Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharma on darunavir polymorph and process
`
`patents. (See, e.g., Paper 3). Two were tried; an appeal is pending.
`
`2 Lupin Ltd. has filed eight inter partes review petitions and has not listed Lupin
`
`Inc. or Lupin Atlantis for reasons discussed herein. (Ex. 1093 ¶ 7).
`
`3 Janssen (erroneously) named Lupin Pharma as a party in the district court
`
`complaint Janssen filed regarding the ‘987 patent. (Paper 3 at 1-9). Even so,
`
`Lupin Ltd. identified Lupin Pharma in the instant Petition to deter accusations that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`Janssen lacks credible evidence that Lupin Ltd. lacks Petition control, or that Lupin
`
`Ltd. is a mere proxy for Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis so as to render them RPIs.4
`
`A. Lupin Ltd. Exercises Sole Discretion and Control Here.
`Whether Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis is a RPI depends on the relationship
`
`between each entity and these inter partes review proceedings, not the relationship
`
`either entity may have with Lupin Ltd. Aruze, slip op. at 12. The former inquiry
`
`focuses on whether the non-party: 1) has an interest in the proceeding; and 2) the
`
`opportunity to control the proceeding to see that its interests are carried out. Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759. While Janssen argues Lupin Inc. and
`
`Lupin Atlantis share relationships with Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharma, Janssen has
`
`not shown that Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis do or could exercise control over the
`
`instant Petition and proceedings.
`
`Lupin Ltd. alone prepared and owns ANDA No. 202-073 to darunavir
`
`tablets, and alone submitted a “Paragraph IV” certification asserting such ANDA
`
`products will not infringe the ‘987 patent and/or that the ‘987 patent is invalid.
`
`it sought to avoid this proceeding’s preclusive effects. RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00171, slip op. (Redacted Paper 49) at 6 (P.T.A.B. July 14, 2014).
`
`4 Notably, Janssen named its parent, Johnson & Johnson, as an RPI, but not each of
`
`the 250+ subsidiaries that Johnson & Johnson owns or controls. (See Ex. 1094,
`
`Johnson & Johnson 2014 Form 10-K (Annual Report) at Exhibit 21: Subsidiaries).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`(Ex. 1093 ¶ 4). From Lupin Ltd.’s Paragraph IV certification, Janssen only sued
`
`Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharma in the pending litigation concerning the ‘987
`
`patent—Lupin Ltd. named both as RPIs in Lupin Ltd.’s Petition. (Paper 1 at 5).
`
`But Lupin Ltd. is the only Lupin entity to direct, control, or fund the preparation
`
`and filing of this Petition. (Ex. 1093 ¶ 7). Lupin Ltd.’s ability to sell its ANDA
`
`Products will benefit if the Board institutes inter partes review of this Petition and
`
`finds the claims of the ‘987 patent unpatentable. Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis are
`
`not parties to Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA (or the litigation concerning that ANDA and the
`
`‘987 patent). Thus, Lupin Ltd. (and Lupin Pharma, given its defendant status)
`
`properly are the only named RPIs.
`
`The Lupin Subsidiaries Lack a Tangible Interest in the Petition.
`
`B.
`Janssen’s arguments offer little more than proclamations that parent-
`
`subsidiary relationships exist between Lupin entities. That simply is not enough.
`
`i.
`
`Janssen’s evidence is insufficient to confer RPI status on
`non-parties Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis.
`
`Janssen’s handful of disconnected and general assertions concerning the
`
`corporate structure of Lupin entities fails to contradict the salient key fact under the
`
`relevant legal test: Lupin Ltd.—ultimate corporate parent to all entities Janssen
`
`lists—is the petitioner with the control over this Petition and proceedings.
`
`Janssen first argues “failure to identify the parent corporation[s],” Lupin
`
`Inc. and Lupin Atlantis to Lupin Pharma, “violates the statutory and regulatory
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`requirements that the petition identify all real parties-in-interest.” (Paper 9 at 7
`
`(quoting ZOLL, slip op. at 11 (emphasis added))). But Janssen admits Lupin Ltd.
`
`is the “ultimate” parent of Lupin Atlantis, Lupin Inc., and Lupin Pharma. (Id. at 4-
`
`5). The ultimate parent corporation, Lupin Ltd., is not only a named RPI, but is the
`
`sole petitioner (Paper 1 at 5)—a critical distinction under ZOLL.
`
`Janssen next argues, “distinction between the Lupin entities is blurred in
`
`presentations to the public” (Paper 9 at 6) in view of Lupin’s website descriptions
`
`and signage use of “Lupin” to refer to various entities, which Janssen urges
`
`encourages the perception Lupin entities all function as a single entity. (Id.) The
`
`Board has rejected attempts to parse the semantics of public statements for
`
`evidence of a non-party RPI. TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-
`
`01499, slip op. (Paper 7) at 7-10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015) (“TRW Auto.”). The
`
`Board has rejected attempts to base a non-party’s RPI status on such “generic
`
`references to the existence of a parent/subsidiary business relationship in SEC
`
`documents.” TRW Auto., slip op. at 11. The Board has also found that a shared
`
`website between sister companies did not make a non-party an RPI. See Aruze,
`
`slip op. at 17-18. Similarly, that Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis share with Lupin
`
`Ltd. or Lupin Pharma a corporate structure or website, or that they generically
`
`constitute “Lupin,” insufficiently shows control over this Petition.
`
`Janssen argues “[s]hared corporate leadership” amongst the different Lupin
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`entities results in Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis being missing RPIs. (Paper 9 at 5).
`
`Janssen lists a handful of Lupin Ltd. officers holding positions at another Lupin
`
`entity (while conceding other Lupin Ltd. officers lack such second positions),
`
`reporting two Lupin Inc. officers as “high-ranking officials” within Lupin Pharma.
`
`(Id.) But this, again, ignores that: 1) Lupin Ltd., the ultimate parent, is the
`
`petitioner and a named RPI; and 2) this Board rejects the premise that different
`
`entities that share one or more corporate officers necessarily means the non-party
`
`controls the named RPI. See Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00215, slip op. (Paper 47) at 6 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2014).
`
`Janssen also generally asserts Lupin entities have “intertwined business
`
`relationships.” (Paper 9 at 5-6). This is immaterial when the ultimate parent,
`
`Lupin Ltd., is the petitioner; a named RPI; and has the control over the ANDA
`
`Products, instant Petition and proceedings. While Janssen cites to Lupin Atlantis
`
`holding New Drug Applications and ANDAs generally (id. at 6), it blatantly
`
`ignores Lupin Ltd. undisputedly is the owner of and controls decisions regarding
`
`ANDA No. 202-073, the subject of the ‘987 patent litigation. (Ex. 1093 ¶¶ 4, 6).
`
`Janssen also makes general statements regarding Lupin Inc.’s and Lupin
`
`Atlantis’ business activities—but lacks specific facts about the instant Petition, the
`
`‘987 patent, or Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA No. 202-073. (Paper 9 at 5-6).
`
`And, despite Janssen’s arguments that “intertwined business relationships”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`exist between certain Lupin entities, Janssen nowhere mentions it sued only Lupin
`
`Ltd. and Lupin Pharma regarding Lupin Ltd.’s ANDA No. 202-073 and the ‘987
`
`patent. Janssen has not amended its complaint to add Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis.
`
`Thus, by Janssen’s own pre-IPR considerations, Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis
`
`were not real parties-in-interest; they were not even parties Janssen deemed worthy
`
`of suit in litigation, under a far lower standard for legal interests compared to the
`
`narrow one before this Board: control over the petition itself.
`
`Janssen’s reliance on general statements and assertions is fatal; the “real
`
`party-in-interest inquiry is ‘highly fact-dependent.’” (Paper 9 at 4 (citing
`
`Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422, slip op. (Paper 14) at 7
`
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2015) (“Galderma”))). As the Board has consistently held, the
`
`“RPI does not describe the relationship between the parties” but the “relationship
`
`between a party and a proceeding.” Aruze, slip op. at 11. Lupin Ltd. is the sole
`
`petitioner and sole party responsible for directing, controlling, and funding the
`
`preparation and filing of the instant Petition. (Ex. 1093 ¶ 7). The mere existence
`
`of a parent-subsidiary relationship “does not establish a relationship sufficient to
`
`make the [non-party] a real party in interest.” TRW Auto., slip op. at 11. Janssen
`
`had to sufficiently demonstrate with evidence that the non-party controls a party’s
`
`participation. See Compass Bank v. Intellectual Ventures II, IPR2014-00719, slip
`
`op. (Paper No. 11) at 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014). None of the Lupin Ltd.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`subsidiaries participated in the decision to file the instant Petition, nor did they
`
`provide any funding or other compensation to Lupin Ltd. for the preparation and
`
`filing of the petition. (Ex. 1093 ¶ 7). There never was, and never will be,
`
`opportunities for Lupin subsidiaries to control this Petition or the proceedings
`
`concerning same, and certainly not in contravention of Petitioner.
`
`ii.
`
`The Board’s prior decisions regarding parent and
`subsidiary relationships are distinct from the instant case.
`Janssen cites three proceedings where the Board decided a non-party parent
`
`entity exercised sufficient control over the petition and/or proceedings to qualify as
`
`a RPI. (See Paper 9 at 4-7 (citing Galderma, Paper 14; ZOLL, Paper 13; Atlanta
`
`Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, slip op. (Paper
`
`88) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2015) (“Atlanta Gas Light”))). All three decisions evaluated
`
`situations where: (i) a parent entity was not named as an RPI; and (ii) this non-
`
`named parent entity had control, or an opportunity to control, the petition and the
`
`proceedings. Galderma, slip op. at 8-13; ZOLL, slip op. at 8-11; Atlanta Gas
`
`Light, slip op. at 9-13. That is the opposite of what occurred here. While Lupin
`
`Pharma is a named RPI, Lupin Ltd. the ultimate parent, is the RPI; is the sole
`
`petitioner; and all facts confirm Lupin Ltd. controls the Petition; these proceedings;
`
`the darunavir ANDA; and litigation related to the ‘987 patent. (Ex. 1093 ¶¶ 4-7;
`
`Paper 3 at 2-3, 5). Janssen proffers no facts showing Lupin Pharma, or non-named
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`entities, Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis, have control, or an opportunity to control,
`
`this Petition or the proceedings, let alone override their corporate parent’s
`
`decisions. (Id.; see also generally Paper 9).
`
`Thus, since the “evidence indicates that [Lupin Ltd.] calls the shots as it
`
`pertains to the inter partes review and related litigation,” and Janssen failed to
`
`show Lupin Ltd. “acted as a proxy for” Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis, Janssen’s RPI
`
`challenge fails. See Par, slip op. at 17 (parent entity not an RPI due to lack of
`
`control of petition, proceedings, and litigations involving the patents-at-issue in the
`
`related petitions), 18 (not a proxy).
`
`V. CONCLUSION.
`Petitioner Lupin Ltd. is the only entity funding, directing, or controlling this
`
`inter partes review. Janssen’s parent-subsidiary arguments fail to show Lupin Ltd.
`
`lacks control, or is an improper Lupin Inc. or Lupin Atlantis proxy. Petitioner
`
`satisfied the requirements of § 312(a); the current Petition filing date should be
`
`maintained; and review of the ‘987 patent should be instituted.
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Deanne M. Mazzochi
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`Deanne M. Mazzochi (Reg. No. 50,158)
`Tara M. Raghavan (Reg. No. 55,557)
`6 West Hubbard, Suite 500
`Chicago, IL
`(312) 222-6305 (telephone)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(312) 222-6325 (facsimile)
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Lupin Limited
`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on August 28,
`
`2015, a copy of the foregoing document “LUPIN LIMITED’S REPLY
`
`REGARDING THE
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF REAL PARTIES-IN-
`
`INTEREST” and accompanying exhibits were served by delivering a copy via
`
`Federal Express for overnight delivery, upon the following:
`
`Dianne B. Elderkin
`Barbara L. Mullin
`Ruben H. Munoz
`AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER
`& FELD LLP
`Two Commerce Square
`2001 Market Street, Suite 4100
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Baker & Hostetler LLP
`ATTN: Stephanie A. Lodise
`Cira Centre, 12th Floor
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891
`
`Patent Owner’s correspondence
`address of record for U.S. Patent No.
`8,518,987
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Irena Royzman
`PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB &
`TYLER LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`
`
`
`
`/Deanne M. Mazzochi/
`Deanne M. Mazzochi
`Registration No. 50,158
`6 West Hubbard, Suite 500
`Chicago, IL
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(312) 222-6305 (telephone)
`(312) 222-6325 (facsimile)
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner Lupin Limited
`
`IPR2015-01030
`Patent No. 8,518,987 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2

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