`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. 34
`
` Entered: December 9, 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, GRACE KARAFFA
`OBERMANN, and TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TIERNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues common to all identified cases. We exercise
`our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading.
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`An initial conference call in the above proceedings was held on
`December 1, 2015, among respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, and Judges Tierney, Kim, Obermann and Hulse. The purpose of the
`call was to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling Order and any
`motions the parties intend to file. Neither party filed a list of proposed
`motions prior to the call.
`During the call, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion to
`submit supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123. Specifically,
`Petitioner seeks authorization to file two sets of supplemental information.
`The first set comprises three additional references that attempt to
`demonstrate the public availability of two documents relied upon previously
`by Petitioner. The second set comprises four references that attempt to
`demonstrate the public availability of another three documents relied upon
`previously by Petitioner. Patent Owner requested an opportunity to review
`the two sets of additional references to determine whether or not they would
`oppose Patent Owner’s motion to submit them as supplemental information.
`Based upon the discussions during the conference call, Petitioner
`agreed to provide copies of the two sets of references to Patent Owner prior
`to filing any motion to submit supplemental information. Patent Owner
`agreed to inform Petitioner whether or not they opposed the filing of the first
`and second set of references. Petitioner agreed to indicate on the first page
`of its motion to submit supplemental information whether Patent Owner
`opposes the filing of the motion. Additionally, no time was set for filing the
`motion as the parties agreed to work together to resolve any issues and
`
`2
`
`
`
`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)
`
`indicated a preference for a flexible timeframe for reviewing the documents
`and filing the motion.
`PETITIONER:
`
`Sarah Spires
`Skiermont Puckett LLP
`sarah.spires@skiermontpuckett.com
`1103CFAD6@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`Ki O
`Skiermont Puckett LLP
`ki.o@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`Parvathi Kota
`Skiermont Puckett LLP
`1092CFAD6@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`Paul Skiermont
`Skiermont Puckett LLP
`paul.skiermont@skiermontpuckett.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Francis Cerrito
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Eric C. Stops
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Frank C. Calvosa
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony Insogna
`Jones Day
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`
`3
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`J. Patrick Elsevier
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`
`4