`Paper 15
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`Entered: May 2, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`Basis
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`§ 103(a)
`
` Claims challenged
`1, 2, 4, 6–11, 25–28,
`32–35, 39, and 40
`12–16, 29, 30, 36, 37,
`41, and 42
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests rehearing (Paper
`13; “Req. Reh’g”) of the Board’s Decision on Institution (Paper 12, 14;
`“Dec.”) denying inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37,
`and 39–42 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE44,186 E (Ex.
`1001; “the ’186 patent”). In its Petition (Paper 3; “Pet.”), Petitioner alleged
`that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the following grounds.
`Pet. 2, 3, 22, 46, 50, 53.
`References
`Ashworth I, Villhauer, Raag and,
`Hanessian
`Ashworth I, Villhauer, Raag,
`Hanessian, Bachovchin, and
`GLUCOPHAGE Label
`Ashworth I, Villhauer,
`Raag, Hanessian, Bachovchin and,
`XENICAL Label
`Ashworth I, Villhauer,
`Raag, Hanessian, Bachovchin, and
`MEVACOR Label
`
`
` 103(a)
`
`12, 17, 18, and 22
`
` 103(a)
`
`12, 19, 20, and 21
`
` §
`
`
`
` §
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The applicable
`standard for a request for rehearing is set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d),
`which provides in relevant part:
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for
`rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.
`
`We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing and institute an inter partes
`review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent
`for the reasons provided in the concurrently issued Decision on Institution.
`Paper 16.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01340
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Steven Parmelee
`Richard Torczon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Charles Lipsey
`David Weingarten
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`charles.lipsey@finnegan.com
`david.weingarten@finnegan.com
`
`Eric Grondahl
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP
`egrondahl@mccarter.com
`
`
`4