`Filed: March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`PETITIONER
`
`V.
`
`CELEGENE CORPORATION
`
`PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUBMIT
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PURUSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Where a party has sought to submit information that confirms the public
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`
`accessibility of a prior art reference at issue in the trial, the Board has repeatedly
`
`found such evidence to be proper supplemental information. See, e.g., Biomarin,
`
`IPR2013-00534, Paper 80 at 5 (granting motion under stricter standard of §
`
`42.123(b)); Valeo North Am., Inc. v. Magna Elecs, Inc., IPR2014-01204, Paper 26
`
`at 2-5 (Apr. 10, 2015); Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00369, Paper 37 at 2-5 (Feb. 5, 2014); Motorola Sol’ns, Inc. v. Mobile
`
`Scanning Techs, LLC, IPR2013-00093, Paper 39 at 2 (Jul. 16, 2013). As the Board
`
`has recognized, “a trial is, first and foremost, a search for the truth.” Edmund
`
`Optics, Inc., v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00599, Paper 44 at 4 (May 5, 2015)
`
`(granting motion to submit supplemental information) (citing TechSearch LLC v.
`
`Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`A party seeking to submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.123(a) must show that it is “relevant to a claim for which the trial has been
`
`instituted.” Patent Owner incorrectly argues that “that, for supplemental
`
`information regarding the alleged public availability of a reference to be “relevant
`
`to a claim for which the trial has been instituted,” the Board must have actually
`
`instituted trial on that reference.” (Paper 44 at 1.) To the contrary, the Board has
`
`repeatedly granted motions to submit supplemental information regarding the
`
`public availability or reliability of background references upon which the Board
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`did not actually institute trial. See Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2015-00810,
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Paper 21 at 6 (Nov. 2, 2015) (granting motion to submit supplemental information
`
`“proffered solely on the limited issue of whether Aventail Connect was publicly
`
`available prior to the effective date,” where the Aventail Connect reference was not
`
`a reference upon which the Board instituted trial in that IPR (see Paper 8 at 23,
`
`Sept. 11, 2015)); Shire Dev. LLC v. Lucerne Biosciences, LLC, IPR2014-00739,
`
`Paper 23 at 3 (Mar. 12, 2015) (granting motion to submit supplemental information
`
`regarding FDA approval of a drug”); Edmund Optics, Inc., IPR2014-00599, Paper
`
`44 at 4 (granting motion to submit supplemental information regarding the
`
`reliability of a reference upon which the Board instituted trial). Similarly, here,
`
`Exhibits 1012-14—for which Petitioner seeks to submit supplemental information
`
`as to their public availability—are used to explain the state of the art which would
`
`have led a POSA to combine the references upon which the Board instituted trial.
`
`Thus, the supplemental information the Petitioner seeks to admit is “relevant to a
`
`claim for which the trial has been instituted.”
`
`Patent Owner additionally argues that “CFAD’s motion lacks merit because
`
`the supplemental information cannot ‘confirm[] public accessibility/availability,’
`
`as CFAD mistakenly alleges” because “the submission of a reference as part of an
`
`IDS does not constitute an admission that a cited reference is prior art.” (Paper 44
`
`at 3.) However, Petitioner does not suggest that the submission of an IDS is an
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`admission that a cited reference is material prior art. Instead, Petitioner relies upon
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`the IDS citations for Patent Owner’s admissions of fact in those citations
`
`concerning the CDC Minutes (Ex. 1014) and the NIH Minutes (Exs. 1012-13).1
`
`While the mere citation of a reference in an IDS is not an admission that the
`
`cited references are material prior art—a number of cases illustrate that admissions
`
`of fact made in an IDS—submitted pursuant to a duty of candor, good faith, and
`
`honesty upon which the public is entitled to rely—are relevant and bind the
`
`applicant to the facts admitted. See, e.g., Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 Fed.
`
`
`1 Patent Owner makes much over the fact that, of the information Petitioner seeks
`
`to submit, “[t]wo documents are information disclosure statements (“IDS”) that
`
`were submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in 2011—more than a
`
`decade after the patent at issue in this IPR, U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501 (the “’501
`
`patent”), was filed—in connection with other patents that are not at issue in this
`
`IPR.” (Paper 44 at 1.) However, Patent Owner’s argument omits critical
`
`information. For instance, one IDS that Petitioner submits—Ex. 1074—was
`
`submitted by Patent Owner for a patent relating back to the ’501 patent. The other
`
`IDS relates back to U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720, which is an improvement over the
`
`’501 patent. Moreover, these IDS citations are Patent Owner admissions regarding
`
`Exhibits 1012-14, regardless of the time when Patent Owner filed its IDSs.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Appx. 897, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding printed publication based in part on IDS
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`statement, as well as absence of evidence rebutting IDS statement); In re Lister,
`
`583 F.3d 1307, 1313–17 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding reference publicly available
`
`based on IDS statements; ultimately holding IDS statements at issue did not admit
`
`date of availability); Clock Spring v. Wrapmaster, Inc., 560 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (IDS statements of fact regarding a public presentation admit facts for
`
`alleged prior public use); Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Labs., Inc., 356 F.3d
`
`1348, 1355–56 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (statements of fact in IDS including titles of
`
`references applied against patentee as factual evidence showing patentee’s
`
`knowledge of the IDS facts admitted).
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner disputes that each “exhibit is what Petitioner
`
`claims it is,” as well as “any alleged public accessibility/availability of the
`
`exhibits.” (Paper 24 at 1.) However, in the IDSs that Petitioner seeks to submit as
`
`supplemental information, the Patent Owner acknowledges that the exhibits are in
`
`fact what the Petitioner states they are. Thus, the supplemental IDS citations help
`
`to confirm the public accessibility of two prior art references at issue in the trial.
`
`Similarly, the Federal Register citation that Petitioner seeks to submit also
`
`helps to confirm the public accessibility of the CDC Minutes reference at issue.
`
`While Patent Owner argues that the Federal Register citation should not be allowed
`
`because it, by itself, is insufficient to confirm the public accessibility of the CDC
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Minutes, the Board has never required that a reference, on its own, must be able to
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`confirm the public accessibility of another reference. Instead, the Board has
`
`repeatedly allowed multiple supplemental references to confirm the public
`
`accessibility of a single reference. See Apple Inc., IPR2015-00810, Paper 21 at 6-8
`
`(granting motion to submit three exhibits “proffered solely on the limited issue of
`
`whether Aventail Connect was publicly available” and six exhibits with respect to
`
`the public accessibility of an additional reference); Valeo North Am., IPR2014-
`
`01204, Paper 26 at 2-5 (granting motion to submit six exhibits “as evidence to
`
`confirm the public accessibility of the Broggi reference”); Palo Alto Networks,
`
`IPR2013-00369, Paper 37 at 2; (granting motion to submit nine exhibits “as
`
`evidence to confirm the public accessibility of the Julkunen and Brenton
`
`references”). Because the Federal Register citation helps to confirm the public
`
`accessibility of the CDC Minutes, it is proper supplemental information.
`
`March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`Dr. Parvathi Kota (Reg. No. 65,122)
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6621
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave. Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`I hereby certify that on March 25, 2016, a copy of this Motion was served
`
`via email upon the following:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Eric C. Stops
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Frank C. Calvosa
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony Insogna
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`J. Patrick Elsevier
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Date: March 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sarah E Spires/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`