Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: June 29, 2015
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`Case IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)1
`_______________
`
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`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 both cases. The parties are authorized to use
`this style heading when filing an identical paper in both proceedings,
`provided that such heading includes a footnote attesting that “the word-for-
`word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.”
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`By email on June 24, 2015, Patent Owner requested a telephone
`conference with the Board to seek authorization to file two motions in each
`proceeding: (1) a motion for additional discovery directed to Petitioner’s
`identification of real parties-in-interest; and (2) a motion to dismiss the
`Petitions for improper incorporation by reference of claim construction
`arguments. Attachment 1. Regarding additional discovery as to real parties-
`in-interest, Patent Owner appended to the email a draft “Requests for
`Production and Interrogatories to Par Entities and TPG.” Attachment 2. A
`telephone conference was held on June 26, 2015. Ms. Lauren Stevens
`represented Patent Owner. Mr. David Silverstein represented Petitioner.
`After some discussion, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for
`authorization to file a motion for additional discovery directed to the
`proposed “Requests for Production and Interrogatories to Par Entities and
`TPG.” See Attachment 2. We determined that those requests were unduly
`broad and, based on specific representations made during the call, we ruled
`that discovery of the information set forth therein was not necessary in the
`interest of justice. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)(B); 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i);
`see also Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies. LLC,
`Case IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26) (enumerating factors
`that bear on whether a discovery request meets the statutory and regulatory
`standard of necessary “in the interest of justice”).
`Upon further discussion, however, Petitioner agreed to produce the
`Management Rights Agreement identified in Request for Production No. 3.
`Attachment 2, p. 4. Petitioner also agreed to provide Patent Owner
`information relevant to Request for Production No. 4, id.; that is, a written
`response identifying all entities who directed, or had authority to direct, the
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`activities of Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Neal Sondheimer, in connection with
`these proceedings. Patent Owner indicated that the production of those two
`items would be sufficient to satisfy its discovery needs at this time.
`Patent Owner and Petitioner agreed to meet and confer to arrange the
`exchange of the agreed-upon information by close of business on June 29,
`2015. The parties were invited to seek a second telephone conference with
`the Board, after June 29, 2015, if necessary to facilitate the resolution of any
`remaining dispute.
`Patent Owner was provided an opportunity to explain its reasons for
`seeking authorization to file a motion to dismiss the Petitions for improper
`incorporation by reference of claim construction arguments. Attachment 1.
`We denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to
`dismiss the Petitions, where Patent Owner indicated its intention to file a
`Preliminary Response. We advised Patent Owner that the Preliminary
`Response is the proper vehicle for raising its arguments in support of denial
`of review, including those arguments stated during the conference in
`connection with the proposed motion to dismiss. We determined that
`separate briefing, outside the confines of the page limits that apply to
`preliminary responses, is not warranted based on the particular
`representations made during the call. No further briefing was authorized.
`
`It is
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`motion seeking additional discovery is denied;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for authorization
`to file a motion to dismiss the Petitions is denied; and
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, by close of business on June 29, 2015,
`the parties shall meet and confer to arrange for the exchange of information,
`as agreed upon by the parties during the telephone conference, and as
`identified in this Order.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Michael J. Freno
`Sanjay K. Murthy
`K&L GATES LLP
`michael.freno@klgates.com
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`
`David H. Silverstein
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`david.silverstein@parpharm.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lauren Stevens
`Dennis Bennett
`GLOBAL PATENT GROUP, LLC
`lstevens@globalpatentgroup.com
`dennisbennett@globalpatentgroup.com
`
`Matthew Phillips
`RENAISSANCE IP LAW GROUP LLP
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTACHMENT 1
`
`
`From: Lauren Stevens [contact information omitted]
`Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 7:07 PM
`To: Trials
`Cc: Dennis Bennett; Matthew Phillips; Freno, Michael J.; Murthy, Sanjay K.; Silverstein, David
`Subject: IPR2015-01117 and IPR2015-01127
` 
`Dear PTAB: 
` 
`The patent owner requests a conference call with the Board to seek authorization to file two 
`motions in each of the above‐referenced IPRs:  (1) a motion for additional discovery regarding 
`the real parties in interest of the petitioner and (2) a motion to dismiss the petitions for 
`improper incorporation by reference of its claim construction positions.   
` 
`The additional discovery sought via the first motion is attached to this email.  Discovery against 
`Par, the petitioner in this IPR, regarding the same issue was granted to a different patent owner 
`in IPR2015‐ 00548 and IPR2015‐ 00551.  The parties have met and conferred about this 
`additional discovery but cannot reach an agreement.  The petitioner wishes to delay discovery in 
`this matter until a decision is made in the IPR2015‐ 00548 and IPR2015‐ 00551 cases.  The 
`patent owner wishes to take this discovery in time to incorporate it in its preliminary response, 
`as the real‐party‐in‐interest issue is dispositive in this case and may result in avoidance of two 
`trials. 
` 
`The motion to dismiss is based on patent owner's position that petitioner has not provided its 
`claim construction, as required to give notice to patent owner.  The patent owner believes that 
`footnote 3 in IPR2015‐01127 and in footnote 5 in IPR2015‐01117 is an improper incorporation 
`by reference of the petitioner’s claim construction positions, which are required to be in the 
`body of the petition.   The petitioner disagrees.  The parties have conferred but are unable to 
`reach agreement on this issue. 
`
`Counsel for both parties are available 1:00 PM PT / 4:00 PM ET on both Thursday, June 25 and 
`Friday, June 26. 
` 
`Thank you for your attention to this matter. 
` 
`Best regards, 
` 
`Lauren 
` 
`Lauren L. Stevens, Ph.D. 
`Reg. No. 36,691 
`[contact information omitted]
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
` 
`
`ATTACHMENT 2
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS
`
`1. The terms “document" and “thing" have the broadest meaning prescribed in Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 34, including E81 and any physical specimen or tangible item, in your
`
`possession, custody, or control.
`
`2. The term “communications" means the transmission or receipt of information of any kind
`through any means (cg, e-mail, voicemail, audio, computer readable media or oral).
`
`3. The term “Petition” means the PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF US.
`
`PATENT NO.
`
`PURSUANT TO §§ 35 U.S.C. 311-319 AND 37 CPR. § 42
`
`
`filed in IPR2015-
`
`(paper no.
`
`i.
`
`4. The term “Par Inc.” means Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., an employee or officer of Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc., or a person acting as an agent of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. within the
`
`scope of that agency.
`
`5. The term “Par Co.” means Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc, an employee or officer of
`
`Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., or a person acting as an agent of Par Pharmaceutical
`
`Companies, Inc. within the scope of that agency.
`
`6. The term “Par Holdings” means Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., an employee or officer of
`
`Par Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., or a person acting as an agent of Par Pharmaceutical
`
`Holdings, Inc. within the scope of that agency.
`
`7. The term “Sky 1” means Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings I Corporation, an employee or
`
`officer of Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings I Corporation, or a person acting as an agent of
`
`Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings I Corporation within the scope of that agency.
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`The term “Sky ll" means Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings II Corporation, an employee or
`
`officer of Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings II Corporation, or a person acting as an agent of
`
`Sky Growth Intermediate Holdings II Corporation within the scope of that agency.
`
`The term “TPG" means TPG Capital, L.P., TPG Partners VI, L.P., TPG Sky Co-Invest, L.P.,
`
`TPG VI Management LLC, or TPG Sky, L.P., an employee or officer of the forgoing TPG
`
`entities, or a person acting as an agent of the forgoing TPG entities within the scope of that
`
`agency.
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`The terms “Par Entities” or “Par Entity” means any or all of Par Inc., Par (30., Par Holdings,
`
`Sky I, and Sky II.
`
`An entity is not required to produce documents, things or information subject to a claim of
`
`privilege, including attorney work product. An entity withholding responsive documents on
`
`the basis of privilege shall provide a privilege log identifying the responsive documents or
`
`information being withheld.
`
`The production of responsive documents or information shall not constitute an express or
`
`implied waiver of any privilege held by the producing entity.
`
`1.
`
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 1
`
`Communications between any of the Far Entities and any other Par Entity, prior to and as
`
`of the filing of the Petition, regarding the preparation, content, or filing of the Petition.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 2
`
`Communications between TPG and any of the Par Entities, prior to and as of the filing of
`
`the Petition, regarding the preparation, content, or filing of the Petition.
`
`My
`
`RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3
`
`The Management Rights Agreement with TPG referred to in the Far Co. lO-K (page87)
`
`dated March 13, 2015.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4
`
`The engagement letter with Dr. Neal Sondheimer (“Sondheimer”), and any invoices or
`
`payment documents from or to Sondheimcr sufficient to show the person(s) or entities that hired
`
`Sondheimer, that Sondheimer billed, and that paid Sondheimer.
`
`w
`
`RES QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5
`
`Documents and things showing communications between
`
`(1) David Silverstein andfor Lawrence Brown and Barry Gilman; and
`
`(2) David Silverstein, Lawrence Brown, or Barry Gilman, and Thomas Haughey,
`
`regarding the current proceeding, including papers filed in this proceeding.
`
`m
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`RE UEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 6
`
`Copies of employment agreements and any other agreements between David Silverstein,
`
`Lawrence Brown, or Barry Gilman, and Far, Inc. (identified in Barry Gilman’s deposition taken
`
`June 4, 2015, in Par Pharm. Inc. v. Jazz Pharm., Inc, Case IPR2015—0055 1, Paper
`
`1 1 1) or any Par Entity.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7
`
`Copies of all intercompany agreements, and any other agreements, between any of the
`
`Par Entities or any of the Par Entities and TPG, regarding or that address the provision of legal
`
`services to, or the management of, any of the Par Entities.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`RE! QUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8
`
`Documents and things sufficient to show the Par Entities to whom the law firm of K&L
`
`Gates sent communications, including bills, regarding the preparation or content of the Petition,
`
`or the decision to file the Petition.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`11.
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`Identify, by name, title(s), and Par Entities, all persons who were employees, officers, or
`
`directors of more than one of the Far Entities as of the filing of the Petition.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`[NTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`Provide a list of persons that identifies by name, title(s), and Pa: Entities with whom the
`
`person is associated, who provided direction to, or had the authority to provide direction to,
`
`Petitioner Par Inc. or its counsel in rotation to this proceeding, including persons who reviewed,
`
`or were given the opportunity to review, papers filed in this proceeding.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`Identify any communication between any of the Far Entities and any other Par Entity, not
`
`reduced to a tangible form and not otherwise identified in any document or thing produced in
`
`response to RF? No. 1, in which the preparation, content, or filing of the Petition was discussed,
`
`prior to and as of the filing of the Petition. For any such communication, describe the topic, the
`
`individuals between whom the communication occurred, and the approximate date of the
`
`communication.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01117 (Patent 8,642,012)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`IPR2015-01127 (Patent 8,404,215)
`
`
`[-NTERROGATORY N0. 4
`
`Identify any communication between TPG and any of the Par Entities, not reduced to a
`
`tangible form and not otherwise identified in any document or thing produced in response to RFP
`
`No. 2, in which the preparation, content, or filing of the Petition was discussed, prior to and as
`
`of the filing of the Petition. For any such communication, describe the topic, the individuals
`
`between whom the communication occurred, and the approximate date of the communication.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`Identify, by name and titie(s), all persons who Were employees, officers, or directors of
`
`Par, Inc., one or more of the Far Entities, or TPG, and who had communications with Hyperion
`
`Therapeutics, Inc, or one of its employees, officers, agents, directors, or attorneys, regarding
`
`US. Patent No.
`
`or the litigation styled Hyperion Therapeutics Inc. v. Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc, Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-3 84-JRG-RSP (ED. Tex), including but not
`
`limited to settlement or licensing discussions.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`