`571-272-7822 Date: June 2, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2016-00084 and IPR2016-01059
`Patent 5,665,772
`____________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Patent Owner
`Novartis AG contacted the Board, requesting a conference call to discuss
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00084 and IPR2016-01059
`Patent 5,665,772
`
`various scheduling issues in these related inter partes review proceedings.
`The panel convened a call on June 1, 2016, attended by Judges Crumbley,
`Green, and Pollock, as well as counsel for Par and Novartis. Counsel for
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (the Petitioner in IPR2016-01023 and
`IPR2016-01103) and Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (the Petitioner in IPR2016-
`01102) also attended the call, as both parties have filed Motions seeking
`joinder of their respective proceedings with IPR2016-00084.
`A court reporter was present on the call, and Par agreed to file a copy
`of the transcript with the Board once received. Par should also provide a
`copy of the transcript to Breckenridge and Roxane, so that the transcript may
`be filed in those cases, as well.
`During the call, Novartis sought an extension of Due Date 1 in
`IPR2016-00084, and Par sought a shortening of the deadline for Novartis’
`Preliminary Response in IPR2016-01059. The details of the parties’
`arguments will be reflected in the transcript and need not be repeated herein.
`Upon hearing the parties’ arguments, the Board requested that the
`parties negotiate amongst themselves regarding the various scheduling
`issues, in the hope of reaching resolution without the Board’s involvement.
`The parties were reminded that they may stipulate to different dates for Due
`Dates 1–5 as set forth in our Scheduling Order in the instituted IPR2016-
`00084, and that Novartis could file its Preliminary Responses before the
`regulatory three-month deadline if the parties agree to expedite IPR2016-
`01023, IPR2016-01059, IPR2016-01102, and IPR2016-01103.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00084 and IPR2016-01059
`Patent 5,665,772
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that the parties shall engage in a meaningful meet and
`confer to resolve the scheduling issues raised during the call; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within five business days of this Order,
`the parties will either: (1) notify the Board that they have reached
`agreement; or (2) request another conference call with the panel to resolve
`any remaining issues.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00084 and IPR2016-01059
`Patent 5,665,772
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Daniel Brown
`Daniel.Brown@lw.com
`Robert Steinberg
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`Jonathan M. Strang
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`nkallas@fchs.com
`Raymond Mandra
`rmandra@fchs.com
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`
`4
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
