`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 20
`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