Paper No. __
`Filed: July 28, 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 IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`
`Filed: July 28, 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 IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`PRIOR THREATS AND RELEVANT FACTS..................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`This petition is contrary to the AIA and its legislative history ................................7
`
`The Board should dismiss the Petition as a sanction against the RPI for
`their abuse and improper use of these proceedings .................................................9
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Inter partes review (“IPR”) was designed as an expeditious and less costly
`
`alternative to federal district court litigation. It was not designed for the purpose to
`
`which it is aimed here—as a tool to affect the stock prices of public companies for
`
`financial gain, to the detriment of those companies and the investing public. By
`
`their own admission, the real parties in interest (“RPI”) filed this and other
`
`petitions as part of their strategy to profit from affecting stock prices. Their
`
`petitions represent an ongoing abuse of the IPR process that has been and will
`
`continue to be an unwarranted burden on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“Board”), and on innovators like patent owner Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”)
`
`and its shareholders. Celgene is confident in the strength of its patents, but should
`
`not be required to expend extensive resources defending them in the face of the
`
`RPI’s abuse of process.
`
`The RPI’s abuse of process began in 2014 when they twice threatened to file
`
`IPRs against two Celgene patents, including those at issue in IPR2015-01092,
`
`-1096, -1102, and -1103. Specifically, RPI and self-described “patent troll” Erich
`
`Spangenberg (and his company IPNav, also an RPI) first threatened Celgene with
`
`IPRs in January 2014. Then in July 2014, they assisted a third party in its effort to
`
`obtain payment from Celgene in exchange for not filing nearly identical IPRs
`
`against the same patents. Notably, none of the threats came from anyone with a
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`legitimate business interest in the targeted patents or the technology that they
`
`cover. Instead, the threats were nothing more than an improper use of the IPR
`
`process solely for the RPI’s financial gain.
`
`When Celgene did not pay, Mr. Spangenberg/IPNav no longer had any
`
`financial incentive to file the IPRs, and did not do so at that time. Instead, they
`
`teamed up with RPI and hedge fund manager J. Kyle Bass, and together, they
`
`concocted a new scheme to profit from affecting companies’ stock prices by filing
`
`IPRs. The Petition in this matter, which counsel for the RPI admitted is just a
`
`“rewrite” of the earlier threatened petitions, is part of that scheme. It is driven
`
`entirely by an admitted “profit motive” unrelated to the purpose of the American
`
`Invents Act (“AIA”), as set forth in the bill itself and its legislative history, and
`
`unrelated to any competitive interest in the validity of the challenged patents.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.12, the Board has the power to
`
`and should sanction the RPI by dismissing this Petition as an abuse of process and
`
`an improper use of these proceedings.
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR THREATS AND RELEVANT FACTS
`
`From 2008 to 2013, Mr. Spangenberg was “very proud to be America’s
`
`biggest patent troll,” using IPNav to sue at least 1,638 companies. Ex. 2033 at 1.
`
`IPNav’s business model involved sending vague demand letters, implicitly
`
`demanding payment. “The implied ‘or else!’ ooze[d] from th[e] letter.”
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Renaissance Learning v. Doe, No. 11-166, 2011 WL 5983299, at *4 (W.D. Wisc.
`
`Nov. 29, 2011). The AIA was specifically enacted to curb such abusive tactics.
`
`But the AIA did not deter Mr. Spangenberg and IPNav. Rather, they saw the
`
`AIA (and IPRs in particular) as an easier and more profitable opportunity than their
`
`normal “troll” business. They began abusing and misusing IPRs by threatening to
`
`file petitions with the goal of extracting “settlement” payments. They had no
`
`interest in the patents or the life-saving therapies that the patents protect. They
`
`simply saw a way to profit by using the IPR process for an improper purpose—
`
`coercing businesses into paying demands to avoid costly proceedings.1
`
`Mr. Spangenberg, on behalf of IPNav, first threatened Celgene in a January
`
`2014 email to Celgene’s attorneys (Ex. 2034) that attached draft IPRs (and
`
`supporting expert declarations) against two Celgene patents: (1) the patent at issue
`
`in IPR2015-01092, U.S. Patent No. 6,045,501 (the “’501 patent”) (Ex. 2035; Ex.
`
`2036); and (2) U.S. Patent No. 6,315,720 (the “’720 patent”) (Exs. 2037-2040), at
`
`issue in IPR2015-01096, -1102, and -1103. See also Ex. 2041. His email was
`
`
`
`
`1 Under New Jersey law (where Celgene is headquartered), this conduct amounts
`
`to extortion. See N.J. Stat. § 2C:20-5(g); State v. Roth, 289 N.J. Super 152 (1996)
`
`(finding extortion where defendant’s threat was solely calculated to harm victim,
`
`and the only benefit to defendant was payment to make him go away).
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`cryptic, but its purpose was clear; as in Renaissance, “[t]he implied ‘or else’
`
`ooze[d] from th[e]” email. See Ex. 2034.
`
`Celgene never responded to that threat, but on July 15, 2014, Celgene’s
`
`attorneys received another email threatening the ’501 and ’720 patents. See Ex.
`
`2042. This email was sent by an attorney allegedly representing the Initiative for
`
`Responsibility in Drug Pricing (“IRDP”), but attached nearly the same draft
`
`petitions and expert declarations that Mr. Spangenberg had used to threaten
`
`Celgene in January 2014. Compare Exs. 2035-2041 with Exs. 2043-2049. It is
`
`apparent that Mr. Spangenberg/IPNav assisted IRDP.
`
`IRDP’s email stated that its “mission is to improve America’s access to low
`
`cost generic pharmaceuticals.” Ex. 2042. Celgene soon learned, however, that the
`
`Spangenberg/IPNav-assisted IRDP would readily forego its purported altruistic
`
`mission in exchange for cash. Celgene again did not pay, and the threatened
`
`petitions were never filed, likely because Mr. Spangenberg realized that there was
`
`no profit in filing—the money would come only if Celgene agreed to pay his
`
`demands.
`
`In any event, Mr. Spangenberg was not done targeting Celgene for his own
`
`profit. Last year, he met Mr. Bass, and shortly thereafter, Mr. Spangenberg and his
`
`companies, IPNav and nXnP (also an RPI), became paid consultants to Mr. Bass
`
`and several “Hayman” investment companies (all RPI). See Ex. 2028 at 3.
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Together they formed fifteen shell companies (Coalition for Affordable Drugs I-
`
`XV, or “CFAD”) for the sole purpose of “filing and publicizing [IPR] patent
`
`challenges against pharmaceutical companies while also betting against their
`
`shares.” Id. at 1. Each CFAD entity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hayman
`
`Credes Master Fund, L.P. (“Credes”), which through a series of other investment
`
`firms, is controlled by Mr. Bass. See, e.g., Pet. at 1-2.
`
`Mr. Bass then publicly trumpeted his investment strategy of attacking
`
`patents in the pharmaceutical industry in what he termed a “short activist strategy.”
`
`Ex. 2029 at 1. “Mr. Bass was pitching wealthy individuals and institutions to
`
`invest in a dedicated fund that would bet against, or short, the shares of [target]
`
`companies . . . and wager on rivals that could benefit.” Ex. 2028 at 4. The RPI’s
`
`plan was to file petitions on “a big-selling drug [to] rattle investors,” anticipating
`
`that the filing of petitions would cause a change in public companies’ stock prices.
`
`See Ex. 2031 at 2.2 Indeed, RPI Hayman Capital Management L.P. admitted, in a
`
`
`
`
`2 For example, the RPI achieved their goal when they filed petitions against
`
`Acorda Therapeutics (“Acorda”) and Shire LLC (“Shire”). Acorda’s value
`
`dropped nearly 10% ($150 million) when the RPI filed their first petition, and
`
`nearly another 5% when they filed their second petition. See id. at 2. Shire’s stock
`
`price similarly dropped 2.5% upon filing. See Ex. 2050 at 2.
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`June 1, 2015 Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filing, that the “primary
`
`purpose” of at least two RPI (Credes and Hayman Orange Fund SPC-Portfolio A)
`
`is to “generate superior risk-adjusted returns through long or short positions with
`
`regard to selected companies, primarily in the pharmaceuticals sector.” Ex. 2030
`
`at 5. IPRs were not designed for this purpose, which is nothing more than another
`
`nefarious means for achieving the same goal that Mr. Spangenberg and IPNav
`
`sought to achieve through previous threats to file IPRs: to line their own pockets at
`
`the expense of public pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders.
`
`Attempting to downplay the RPI’s true motives, Mr. Bass has claimed
`
`publicly that his IPRs are designed to support generic drug entry and lower drug
`
`prices for consumers (Ex. 2051 at 2-4)—the same alleged motive set forth by
`
`IRDP. Notably, however, all of the RPI, including each CFAD entity, are for
`
`profit organizations that have no competitive interest in the patents that they
`
`challenge or the technology that those patents cover. See Ex. 2027 at 1-2 (defining
`
`“General” entity status as not including non-profit companies).
`
`Put simply, CFAD is a front, and the RPI’s purported altruistic motives are
`
`pretext; each CFAD entity’s sole purpose is to “benefit [Mr. Bass’s] investments”
`
`by filing IPRs and profiting from resulting changes in stock prices. See Ex. 2052
`
`at 1 (Mr. Bass explaining his plan to halve the combined market capitalization of
`
`his target companies—$450 billion—to “benefit[] his investments”). Any other
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`motive would be a breach of Mr. Bass’s fiduciary duty to his investors. See Ex.
`
`2030 at 18 (Hayman SEC filing noting the funds’ “fiduciary duty to clients”).
`
`To date, CFAD I-VII have filed a combined sixteen IPRs against ten
`
`innovator companies, including Celgene. See IPR2015-00720, -817, -988, -990, -
`
`1018, -1076, -1086, -1092, -1093, -1096, -1102, -1103, -1136, -1169, -1241, -1344.
`
`The remaining eight CFAD entities (see Ex. 2026) appear to be lying in wait to
`
`similarly abuse the AIA by filing petitions solely to execute the RPI’s investment
`
`strategy. This is contrary to the AIA’s purpose, and the Board should not allow it.
`
`If the Board permits this strategy to continue, it will be inundated with
`
`similar petitions, and no public company that relies on patents to protect its
`
`innovations will be safe from threats or unnecessary petitions from for-profit
`
`organizations misusing IPRs as investment strategies. The Board should exercise
`
`its discretion and dismiss the Petition.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. This petition is contrary to the AIA and its legislative history
`
`The AIA was conceived and enacted to reduce abusive litigation tactics,
`
`with a specific focus on non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or “patent trolls”—
`
`companies that “don’t produce any products . . . [and] exist for one purpose only,
`
`to bring patent cases.” 153 Cong. Rec. H10276 (Sept. 7, 2007); see also, e.g., 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S5319 (Sept. 6, 2011) (AIA “will cure some very clear litigation
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`abuses”). In other words, the AIA was enacted to hinder those “whose sole
`
`purpose is not to create but to sue”:
`
`I am talking about patent trolls—those entities . . . whose only
`
`innovations occur in the courtroom. . . . This bill is designed to help
`
`all inventors and ensure that small businesses will continue to be a
`
`fountain for job creation and innovation.
`
`157 Cong. Rec. H4485-86 (June 23, 2011). The AIA therefore introduced
`
`“important litigation reforms to rein in abusive lawsuits . . . so that aggressive trial
`
`lawyers do not make patent litigation their next gold mine.” 153 Cong. Rec.
`
`H10276 (Sept. 7, 2007).
`
`As part of its reforms, the AIA introduced post-grant patent challenges,
`
`including IPRs. The RPI have taken the position that anyone can file an IPR. See
`
`Ex. 2051 at 5. But “[t]he post-grant procedure [was] designed to allow parties to
`
`challenge a granted patent through a[n] expeditious and less costly alternative to
`
`litigation.” 153 Cong. Rec. E774 (Apr. 18, 2007) (emphasis added); see also 157
`
`Cong. Rec. S5411 (Sept. 8, 2011) (Sen. Hatch explaining that AIA proceedings
`
`“will decrease litigation costs”). The AIA did not introduce IPRs to provide hedge
`
`funds (who have no litigable patent claim) with a vehicle to profit by affecting a
`
`public company’s stock price by taking advantage of the stigma associated with
`
`IPRs.
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Indeed, as the former General Counsel of the Patent Office explained,
`
`“When we developed [IPRs], we never thought people would use them this way, in
`
`an effort to move stock or as an investment vehicle.” Ex. 2053 at 2. Here, the RPI
`
`are doing just that. Their sole purpose is not to create, or even to compete, but to
`
`file IPRs in an effort to move markets and to reap profits from their investments,
`
`while harming public companies and the investing public. See, e.g., Ex. 2030 at 5;
`
`Ex. 2052 at 1. This is directly contrary to the intent of Congress in enacting the
`
`AIA.
`
`B.
`
`The Board should dismiss the Petition as a sanction against the
`RPI for their abuse and improper use of these proceedings
`
`Congress gave the PTO broad authority to prescribe and enforce sanctions
`
`against abusive IPRs. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6); see also In re Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC., 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Ҥ 316 provides authority to
`
`the PTO to conduct rulemaking”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(6) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.12(a)(6)-(7), the Board may prescribe and issue sanctions for, among
`
`other things, “abuse of process” or “any other improper use of the proceeding.”
`
`Congress directed the PTO to consider several factors in drafting its regulations,
`
`including “the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient
`
`administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete
`
`proceedings.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
`
`Here, the Board instructed the parties to address the elements required to
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`establish an abuse of process. Paper 7 at 2. The PTO has not yet defined the
`
`elements required to establish “abuse of process” or “improper use of the [IPR]
`
`proceeding” pursuant to § 42.12(a)(6)-(7). Courts and another agency have
`
`explained, however, that a party abuses a process when it uses it to achieve a goal
`
`for which the process was not designed. See, e.g., Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
`
`477, 486 n.5 (1994) (an abuse of process is a “perversion of lawfully initiated
`
`process to illegitimate ends”); In re Applications of High Plains Wireless, L.P., 15
`
`F.C.C. Rcd. 4620, 4623 (2000) (“‘[A]buse of process’ has been defined as ‘the use
`
`of a Commission process, procedure or rule to achieve a result which that process,
`
`procedure or rule was not designed or intended to achieve.’”).3
`
`
`
`
`3 The Board also instructed the parties to address the standard of proof that applies
`
`when deciding a motion for sanctions. The PTO has placed the burden on the
`
`moving party (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)), but has not defined a standard of proof.
`
`That said, the two standards used in other aspects of IPR proceedings are
`
`instructive: (1) “reasonable likelihood” for institution (35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)); and
`
`(2) “preponderance of the evidence” for instituted IPRs (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)).
`
`Since Celgene’s motion addresses the threshold, gatekeeping issue of whether the
`
`RPI’s petition is an abuse of process or misuse of the proceedings, the “reasonable
`
`likelihood” standard should apply. Even assuming that the Board requires
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Abuse of process can exist where a party seeks to financially benefit itself by
`
`financially harming another, such as filing “patent office pleadings [that] were
`
`essentially designed ‘to accomplish some end which the process was not intended
`
`by law to accomplish’--such as frightening off [the target company’s] investors.”
`
`Neumann v. Vidal, 710 F.2d 856, 860 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also 5 FCC Rcd. 3911,
`
`3912 (1990) (petitions filed “for private financial gain” are “abusive” and a
`
`disservice to the public interest). Notably, “an abuse of process action can be
`
`maintained even where the earlier suit was ostensibly legitimate, so long as the
`
`reasons for the suit are found illegitimate.” Neumann, 710 F.2d at 860.
`
`Celgene submits that the Board should adopt a similar definition for “abuse
`
`of process” in this proceeding, and sanction the RPI by dismissing the Petition.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(b)(8).4 As Senator Coons recently explained, Mr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“preponderance of the evidence,” Celgene respectfully submits that it has met that
`
`burden as well.
`
`4 Celgene also submits that the showing necessary to prove “[a]ny other improper
`
`use of the proceeding” is even broader than “abuse of process,” and should be
`
`interpreted in light of the proper use of the proceedings as discussed during the
`
`legislative history. Here, CFAD’s actions independently amount to both an abuse
`
`of process and an improper use of the proceedings.
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`Spangenberg’s and Mr. Bass’s attack on the pharmaceutical industry is an “abuse”
`
`and “misuse of post grant proceedings.” Ex. 2054 at 4. In other words, the RPI are
`
`using this proceeding for an illegitimate purpose not contemplated by the statute:
`
`causing changes in the stock prices of public companies and thereby harming the
`
`investing public. Their scheme is no different than Mr. Spangenberg’s original
`
`plan to financially profit by demanding payment in exchange for not filing the
`
`IPRs. The only difference here is the means—the RPI have come up with a new
`
`strategy whereby they aim to profit by filing, instead of demanding payment not to
`
`file. Either way, the RPI’s “sole purpose is not to create but to litigate.” 157
`
`Cong. Rec. H4485-86 (June 23, 2011).
`
`The Board further instructed the parties to address any evidence of intent
`
`that supports the allegation of abuse of process. Paper 7 at 2. That evidence is
`
`discussed in detail above. See supra at §§ I-II. To recap, the RPI began
`
`intentionally misusing the IPR process when Mr. Spangenberg/IPNav threatened to
`
`file IPRs against Celgene’s ’501 and ’720 patents, and later expanded their scheme
`
`into a monetary demand through IRDP. Mr. Spangenberg continued his efforts,
`
`but changed tactics when he met Mr. Bass, and the RPI now stand to gain far more
`
`by taking financial positions in the stock market and then filing IPRs hoping to
`
`move the market. See, e.g., Exs. 2028-2031; Ex. 2050; Ex. 2052; Ex. 2054.
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`To be clear, the RPI have no competitive interest in invaliding the patents on
`
`which they file, whether to operate a business or otherwise compete in the space
`
`covered by the patents. Rather, they are motivated by their desire to profit by
`
`impacting the stock market. As in Neumann, the RPI are filing “patent office
`
`pleadings [that are] essentially designed ‘to accomplish some end which the
`
`process was not intended by law to accomplish’--such as frightening off [the target
`
`company’s] investors.” 710 F.2d 856. This is contrary to the AIA’s purpose, and
`
`an improper use of IPRs. Likely recognizing this, Mr. Bass has publicly stated that
`
`he is filing the IPRs as part of an altruistic mission to get rid of “weak” patents and
`
`to lower drug prices for consumers. See generally Ex. 2051. This is disingenuous
`
`at best.
`
`RPI Hayman Capital Management is a $2 billion investment management
`
`firm. Ex. 2028 at 3. Mr. Bass has a fiduciary duty to his investors that must take
`
`precedence over any allegedly altruistic purpose. See Ex. 2030 at 18. Mr. Bass
`
`and the Hayman investment firms had to investigate whether their IPR investment
`
`strategies would monetarily benefit their investors before they filed, and have a
`
`duty to continue that investigation while prosecuting their IPRs. Mr. Bass is not
`
`filing IPRs so that he can market his own competing generic drugs or to allow the
`
`public to use patented technology; he is first and foremost a Chief Investment
`
`Officer with a fiduciary duty to make money for his clients. Any alleged altruistic
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`motive is therefore a tactic designed to conceal the RPI’s true motive.
`
`Indeed, if altruism meant anything to the RPI, then they would have filed
`
`their threatened IPRs in 2014 instead of demanding payment. In truth, however,
`
`they care only about profit, and when they realized that there was no money to be
`
`made from filing in 2014, they went back to the drawing board and came up with
`
`their current strategy to misuse IPRs to affect the stock market. Tellingly, the RPI
`
`have only filed IPRs against patents owned by public companies.
`
`In light of their admitted “profit motive” and lack of any legitimate
`
`competitive interest in the validity of the challenged patent, the RPI are unlike
`
`generic drug companies, who may seek to invalidate patents that would otherwise
`
`block their ability to market competing products. The RPI also have nothing in
`
`common with nonprofits, especially those that seek to invalidate patents to make
`
`technology available to the public. See generally, e.g., Assoc. for Molecular
`
`Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398, 569 U.S. ____ (2013) (describing
`
`nonprofits’ efforts to invalidate patents covering BRCA genes so that the public
`
`would have unfettered access to breast-cancer screens without fear of an injunction
`
`or lawsuit). Rather, the RPI merely seek, as they must, to maximize profits for
`
`their investors. Their sole motive is to move stock markets by filing IPRs. Unlike
`
`a hypothetical nonprofit interested in eliminating drug patents as part of an attempt
`
`to speed generic entry, the RPI’s mission ultimately does not turn on whether
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Motion For Sanctions
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`patents are upheld or invalidated—instead, they are interested in whether and how
`
`stock prices move within the time horizon of the positions they have strategically
`
`taken in the market. They are therefore using the proceedings for an illegitimate
`
`purpose, and the sanction of dismissal is appropriate.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should sanction Petitioner and the RPI,
`
`and dismiss this Petition.
`
`Date: July 28, 2015
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Celgene Corporation
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`04841.00006/7046930.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certify that
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 316(a)(6) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.12 and accompany exhibits (Exs. 2026-2031,
`
`2033-2054) were served on July 28, 2015 by filing these documents through the
`
`Patent Review Processing System, as well as e-mailing copies to
`
`sarah.spires@skiermontpuckett.com, parvathi.kota@skiermontpuckett.com, and
`
`paul.skiermont@skiermontpuckett.com.
`
`Date: July 28, 2015
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
`F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Celgene Corporation
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
