`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 19
`Filed: September 1, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI, LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CELGENE CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01092 (Patent 6,045,501)
`Case IPR2015-01096 (Patent 6,315,720)
`Case IPR2015-01102 (Patent 6,315,720)
`Case IPR2015-01103 (Patent 6,315,720)1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, MICHAEL W. KIM, JAQUELINE
`WRIGHT BONILLA, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and TINA E.
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Motion to Withdraw Exhibit
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues common to all cases; therefore, we issue a
`single order to be entered in each case.
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01092 (Patent 6,045,501)
`IPR2015-01096 (Patent 6,315,720)
`IPR2015-01102 (Patent 6,315,720)
`IPR2015-01103 (Patent 6,315,720)
`
`
`Patent Owner filed Motions for Sanctions (“Motion,” Paper 112)
`requesting dismissal of Petitioner’s Petitions in IPR2015-01092, -01096, -
`01102, -01103. The Motion alleges that the Petitions represent an ongoing
`abuse of the inter partes review process that will be an unwarranted burden
`on the Board, and innovators like Patent Owner. Motion at 1. According to
`the Motion, the Petition is driven entirely by an admitted “profit motive”
`unrelated to the purpose of the American Invents Act, and unrelated to the
`competitive interest in the validity of the challenged patents. Id. at 2.
`In response to the Motion, Petitioner filed an Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion (“Opposition,” Paper 12). Among other things, the
`Opposition relied upon a Declaration of Dr. Juan (Julie) Wu, Exhibit 1039
`for the proposition that short selling is not illegal, and can be beneficial to
`financial markets. Opposition at 6, 10 n.2.
`Patent Owner requested that Petitioner make Dr. Wu available for
`cross examination, a request that Petitioner rejected. Petitioner Motion to
`Withdraw, Paper 14. A conference call was held with the Board to discuss
`Patent Owner’s request to cross examine Dr. Wu. Id. During the conference
`call, both parties acknowledged that the topics addressed by Dr. Wu’s
`declaration are not relevant to the central issues raised.
`Petitioner, in light of the conference call, filed its Unopposed Motion
`to Withdraw the Wu Declaration. Id. Petitioner requests that Dr. Wu’s
`declaration be withdrawn in the interest of resolving the cross examination
`
`
`2 Citations to papers and exhibits refer to those filed in IPR2015-01092.
`Similar papers and exhibits were filed in each of the other cases.
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01092 (Patent 6,045,501)
`IPR2015-01096 (Patent 6,315,720)
`IPR2015-01102 (Patent 6,315,720)
`IPR2015-01103 (Patent 6,315,720)
`
`dispute, moving to the merits and avoiding further delay and expense. Id.
`Patent Owner did not oppose Petitioner’s request.
`Based upon the specific facts presented, we grant Petitioner’s request
`to withdraw Dr. Wu’s declaration from consideration. Petitioner’s
`Unopposed Motion identifies two places in its Opposition that rely upon the
`declaration, page 6 and footnote 2 on page 10. Per Petitioner’s request,
`these two citations are stricken from the Opposition.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Sarah Spires
`Sarah.spires@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`Parvathi Kota
`Parvathi.kota@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony Insogna
`aminsogna@jonesday.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
