`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`
` Entered: 3 February 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS V LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`Before FRED E. McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`An email dated 2 February 2016 (1:00 p.m.) from Biogen (Patent
`
`Owner) has been received by the Board.
`In relevant part the email reads:
`Patent Owner Biogen MA Inc. requests a conference call in
`IPR2015-01993 to seek authorization to submit a sur-reply to
`Petitioner’s reply [Paper 17] to the preliminary response [Paper
`11] filed on January 28, 2016.
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner has indicated that Petitioner will oppose
`this request.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is generally available for a conference call anytime
`Wednesday-Friday of this week. Petitioner is available anytime
`this week except for Wednesday from 11:30-12:30 or 2:30-3:30.
`
`On 2 February 2016 (2:24 p.m.), the Board emailed counsel informing
`
`them that:
`
`Counsel: No sur-reply is authorized. No conference call is
`needed.
`
`Authorization of whether to authorize a sur-reply is discretionary with
`
`the Board. If a sur-reply is authorized, then a further paper from Petitioner
`would need to be considered because generally a party with the burden of
`proof (Petitioner in this instance) is entitled to the final word.
`
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply are sufficient to enable
`the Board to make an informed decision on whether to institute an inter
`partes review in this case.
`Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner believes Petitioner may
`have raised a “new issue” in its Reply, all are advised that the Board can
`determine sua sponte whether an inappropriate new issue has been raised.
`Lastly, in the event an inter partes review is instituted (a matter on
`which no views are expressed at this time), Patent Owner will have a full
`opportunity to address appropriate issues in its merits opposition.
`
`Upon consideration of the email requesting a conference call to obtain
`leave to file a sur-reply, and for the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that the request for a conference call is denied.
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the request for leave to file a sur-reply is
`denied.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
` cc:
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert W. Hahl
`Robert Mihail
`John K. Pike
`NEIFELD IP LAW
`rhahl@neifeld.com
`rmihail@neifeld.com
`jkpike@neifeld.com
`general@neifeld.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Flibbert
`Maureen D. Queler
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`michael.flibbert@finnegan.com
`maureen.queler@finnegan.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`