`571-272-7822
`
`
`
` Paper 19
`
`Entered: September 1, 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 SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`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
`
`
`The Board has reviewed Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses filed in
`the above-captioned proceedings, which includes arguments related to the
`dismissal of the Petition for abuse of process. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.12(a)(6) and
`42.12(b)(8). We seek additional briefing from the parties addressing whether
`the Petition should be dismissed for abuse of process. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(d).
`Accordingly, the parties are requested, but not required, to submit briefs
`addressing the question of whether the Petitions in the above-captioned
`proceedings should be dismissed for abuse of process. The parties’ briefing
`should at least address the following:
`1) the standing requirement for challenging the validity of that patent
`in an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a);
`2) to what extent, if any, the business objective or intent of the
`Petitioner should be considered in reaching a determination of abuse
`of process;
`3) the intent of Congress to provide an alternative to litigation and to
`provide a mechanism to increase patent quality by allowing
`expedited administrative patent challenges; and
`4) the resulting social costs/benefits associated with a decision to
`address the merits of the Petitions versus a decision to dismiss the
`Petitions for abuse of process without reaching the merits of the
`Petitions.
`Each party shall be limited to fifteen (15) pages, not including the cover
`sheet or certificate of service, for their respective briefs, which shall be
`strictly limited to issues concerning abuse of process and shall not be used as
`an opportunity to reargue the facts of the case. If either party requires
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`Patent 7,056,886 B2
`
`clarification of the scope of the briefing required by this Order, the parties
`may arrange promptly for a conference call with us to discuss this Order.
`Unless further ordered by the Board, no reply briefs shall be submitted.
`
`
`It is
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a brief as described
`in this Order due seven (7) business days after filing of this order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file an
`opposition to Patent Owner’s brief as described in this Order due seven (7)
`business days after filing of Patent Owner’s brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
