`Patent 6,750,237
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`LANNETT HOLDINGS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________________________________
`
`Case: IPR2015-01629
`U.S. Patent No. 6,750,237
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Petitioner Cannot Establish Insufficient Service ............................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Section 18-105 Does Not Apply ........................................................... 1
`
`The July 25, 2014 Service Was Legally Effective ................................ 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Proof of Service Is Prima Facie Evidence of Valid
`Service ......................................................................................... 2
`
`Section 321 Does Not Require Service on an Individual ........... 2
`
`Petitioner Had Notice of Service ................................................ 3
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Cannot Establish a Lack of Standing .............................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner Holds Legal Title to the ’237 Patent .............................. 3
`
`The District Court Denied Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss .................. 5
`
`III. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.,
`IPR2014-00319, Paper 12 (PTAB June 12, 2014) ............................................... 5
`
`Church-El v. Bank of New York,
`No. CIV. 11-877 NLH/KMW, 2013 WL 1190013 (D. Del. Mar.
`21, 2013) ............................................................................................................... 1
`
`eBay, Inc. v. Advanced Auctions LLC,
`IPR2014-00806, Paper 14 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) ............................................... 5
`
`Hanna v. Plumer,
`380 U.S. 460 (1965) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Delaware, Inc.,
`287 B.R. 620 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002) ..................................................................... 2
`
`Keith v. Melvin L. Joseph Constr. Co.,
`451 A.2d 842 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982) ................................................................ 2, 3
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse,
`IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 (PTAB Jan 20, 2013) ................................................. 3
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`803 F. Supp. 2d 409 (E.D. Va. 2011) ................................................................... 4
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 4
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`State Statutes
`
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-105 .............................................................................. 1, 2
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 132(b)(3) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 321 ............................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(3)................................................................................................. 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) .................................................................................... 3
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`Petitioner’s unsupported assertions do not to rebut Patent Owner’s showing
`
`that the petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner Cannot Establish Insufficient Service
`A.
`Petitioner’s assertion that the July 25, 2014, service of process did not
`
`Section 18-105 Does Not Apply
`
`comply with Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-105 is legally flawed. This statute pertains
`
`to service of legal process on a limited liability company (“LLC”). (Ex. 1031.)
`
`Petitioner is not a LLC; it is a corporation. (Ex. 2027.) Section 18-105 therefore
`
`does not apply. The applicable statute for service of process on a Delaware
`
`corporation is Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 321, which states that service of process on
`
`any Delaware corporation “shall be made by delivering a copy personally to . . .
`
`the registered agent of the corporation . . . .” (Ex. 2028); Church-El v. Bank of New
`
`York, No. CIV. 11-877 NLH/KMW, 2013 WL 1190013, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 21,
`
`2013) (Ex. 1032). Here, Parcels Inc. delivered the complaint and summons to CSC
`
`Entity Services, LLC (“CSC”), Petitioner’s registered agent. (Ex. 2002 at 2; Ex.
`
`2027.) Petitioner does not dispute that CSC is its registered agent. Nor does
`
`Petitioner dispute that CSC accepted service of process on its behalf on July 25,
`
`2014. No more was required for a legally effective service.
`
`Although CSC is an LLC, it was not the entity served with legal process and
`
`therefore does not control what statute applies. It has never been a party to the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`lawsuit. Instead, CSC accepted service as Petitioner’s registered agent. See Del.
`
`Code Ann. tit. 8, § 132(b)(3) (Ex. 2004). Petitioner cites no case applying § 18-105
`
`to a registered agent accepting service.
`
`B.
`
`The July 25, 2014 Service Was Legally Effective
`1.
`Petitioner states that no evidence establishes service. (Reply at 3-4.) This is
`
`Proof of Service Is Prima Facie Evidence of Valid Service
`
`incorrect. The signed proof of service filed with the court constitutes prima facie
`
`evidence of valid service. (Ex. 2002); In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Delaware, Inc.,
`
`287 B.R. 620, 623 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002) (Ex. 2029); see Keith v. Melvin L. Joseph
`
`Constr. Co., 451 A.2d 842, 846 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982) (Ex. 2030). Petitioner
`
`therefore bears the burden of proving that service of process was insufficient. In re
`
`Hechinger, 287 B.R. at 623 (Ex. 2029).
`
`Petitioner provides no evidence rebutting Patent Owner’s prima facie
`
`evidence of valid service. According to its website, CSC “maintain[s] records of all
`
`entity transactions for service of process” in Delaware. (Ex. 2031.) CSC’s records
`
`presumably would indicate if it did not accept service on July 25, 2014. Petitioner,
`
`however, has provided no records from CSC (its own registered agent), does not
`
`dispute that CSC accepted service on this date, and waived any objection to
`
`service. (Prelim. Resp. at 4.)
`
`Section 321 Does Not Require Service on an Individual
`
`2.
`Petitioner asserts that service was insufficient because the proof of service
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`did not name an individual. (Reply at 3-4.) But § 321 does not require service on
`
`an individual. (Ex. 2028); see Keith, 451 A.2d at 845 (Ex. 2030). Section 321 also
`
`does not require the return to identify an individual. (Ex. 2028); see Keith, 451
`
`A.2d at 846 (Ex. 2030). Thus, that the proof of service names CSC and not an
`
`individual is irrelevant. Because the summons and complaint were delivered to
`
`Petitioner’s registered agent, service was proper under § 321. Proof of service is
`
`not even needed to establish valid service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(3) (“Failure to
`
`prove service does not affect the validity of service.”).
`
`Petitioner Had Notice of Service
`
`3.
`A service of process statute ensures that a defendant receives notice of an
`
`action. Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 462 n.1 (1965); Keith, 451 A.2d at 845
`
`(Ex. 2030). Petitioner received notice of the infringement action. The litigation
`
`docket reports service on July 25, 2014, and lists August 15, 2014 (21 days from
`
`service) as the answer due date. (Ex. 2032 at D.I. 5); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).
`
`A day before that due date, Petitioner stipulated to an extension of time to answer
`
`the complaint. (Ex. 2033.) Petitioner never disputed notice of service or having
`
`benefit of the one-year period to analyze the patent and file an IPR. Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 at 4-5 (PTAB Jan 20, 2013).
`
`II.
`
`Petitioner Cannot Establish a Lack of Standing
`A.
`Petitioner asserts that because an alleged co-owner was not a party to the
`
`Patent Owner Holds Legal Title to the ’237 Patent
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`first complaint, standing was not established. (Reply at 6.) This is incorrect. Patent
`
`Owner AstraZeneca AB holds legal title to the ’237 patent, as it did on July 25,
`
`2014, and therefore had standing to sue in its own name. (See Ex. 2010; see also
`
`Ex. 2009; Pet. at 1 (listing only AstraZeneca AB as the patent owner)); Pfizer Inc.
`
`v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 409, 424 (E.D. Va. 2011) (Ex. 2034).
`
`In Pfizer, the court held that Pfizer, Inc., the assignee and legal owner of the
`
`patent, had standing to sue in its own name and that Pfizer Ltd., the beneficial
`
`owner having the right to grant licenses, had standing to sue in its own name and in
`
`concert with the legal owner. Id. at 424-26. Petitioner disregards this precedent
`
`(cited in the preliminary response).
`
`Patent Owner is the assignee holding legal title to the ’237 patent and
`
`therefore had standing to sue in its own name. Id. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.’s interest
`
`in the ’237 patent, such that it can grant a license, does not negate this legal title or
`
`establish it as a co-owner. The statement in the second complaint that AstraZeneca
`
`AB and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. own all rights, title, and interest in the ’237 patent
`
`also does not negate AstraZeneca AB’s ownership or sole legal title. (See Ex. 2005
`
`at ¶ 25.) Rather, it affirms that AstraZeneca AB owns the ’237 patent, with some
`
`interest resting with AstraZeneca UK Ltd.. Petitioner has shown no contrary patent
`
`assignment, co-ownership, or any defect in the assignment to AstraZeneca AB. See
`
`SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01629
`Patent 6,750,237
`(challenger has burden to show invalidity of recorded assignment); see also eBay,
`
`Inc. v. Advanced Auctions LLC, IPR2014-00806, Paper 14 at 6 (PTAB Sept. 25,
`
`2014). Accordingly, the infringement action was not jurisdictionally defective.
`
`The District Court Denied Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss
`
`B.
`Petitioner moved to dismiss the infringement action for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`(Exs. 2007; 2008.) The district court denied this motion and consolidated the two
`
`infringement actions. (Ex. 2011 at 1, 3.) Thus, the date of service of the first
`
`complaint on Petitioner controls. Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.,
`
`IPR2014-00319, Paper 12 at 7 (PTAB June 12, 2014). Petitioner argues that the
`
`motion was denied without prejudice to renewal after discovery. (Reply at 7.) But
`
`discovery will end well after an institution decision. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). Therefore,
`
`the Board should reject Petitioner’s request to reconsider the same jurisdictional
`
`issue that the district court has already decided against Petitioner on a fuller
`
`evidentiary record.
`
`III. Conclusion
`The petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Michael J. Flibbert /
`Michael J. Flibbert, Reg. No. 33,234
`Maureen D. Queler, Reg. No. 61,879
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015—0l629
`
`Patent 6,750,237
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S
`
`SUR—REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY was
`
`served
`
`electronically Via e—mail on December 28, 2015, in its entirety on the following:
`
`Joseph F. Posillico
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`ipdocket@foxrothschild.corn
`jposillico@foxrothschild.com
`
`Frank T. Carroll
`
`Fox Rothschild LLP
`
`2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
`
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
`fcarroll@foxrothschild.com
`
`Petitioner has agreed to electronic service.
`
` Dated: December 28, 2015
`By’ Lauren K. Young
`
`FINNEGAN, HE
`
`RSON, FARABOW,
`
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP