Paper No. 55
`Filed: February 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC,
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, and
`WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`V.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-002401
`Patent 7,772,209
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2016-01191, IPR2016-01337 and IPR2016-01343 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`Filed: February 14, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`NEPTUNE GENERICS, LLC,
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, and
`WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
`
`PETITIONERS,
`
`V.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
`
`PATENT OWNER.
`
`
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2016-002401
`Patent 7,772,209
`___________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2016-01191, IPR2016-01337 and IPR2016-01343 have been joined
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a), and the Scheduling Order entered on June
`
`17, 2016, IPR2016-00237 Paper 15 at 3; IPR2016-00240 Paper 15 at 3, Petitioner
`
`Neptune Generics, LLC (“Neptune”) respectfully requests the oral argument as
`
`currently scheduled for March 7, 2017.
`
`Without intending to waive any issue not specifically identified, Neptune
`
`identifies below the issues to be argued:
`
`1.
`
`The ground of unpatentability instituted in IPR2016-00237: Claims 1-
`
`22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”) as being obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103 over Niyikiza (Ex. 1008) in view of the ’974 Patent (Ex. 1009) and
`
`further in view of the European Patent Application No. 0 595 005 (“EP 005”) (Ex.
`
`1010), together with the knowledge of the Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`(“POSA”). Paper 13 at 19.
`
`2.
`
`The ground of unpatentability instituted in IPR2016-00240: Claims 1-
`
`22 of the ’209 patent as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following
`
`ground Rusthoven (Ex. 1011) in view of EP 005 (Ex. 1010), together with the
`
`knowledge of the POSA. Paper 14 at 19.
`
`3.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Petitioner’s IPR2016-
`
`00237 Petition for an IPR of the ’209 patent. Paper 1.
`
`4.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in the Board’s Decision
`
`to institute IPR2016-00237. Paper 13.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition in IPR2016-00237. Paper 33.
`
`6.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Petitioner’s IPR2016-
`
`00240 Petition for an IPR of the ’209 patent. Paper 1.
`
`7.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in the Board’s Decision
`
`to institute IPR2016-00240. Paper 14.
`
`8.
`
`Any issues, exhibits, or factual matters raised in Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition in IPR2016-00240. Paper 32.
`
`9.
`
`Neptune’s Motion to Exclude in IPR2016-00237 and IPR2016-00240
`
`and any opposition by Patent Owner Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) thereto.
`
`10. Pursuant to the teleconference held January 25, 2017, any issues,
`
`exhibits, or factual matters raised in Lilly’s Sur-Reply, which is due on February
`
`14, 2017.
`
`11. Any issues specified by Lilly in a Request for Oral Argument, but
`
`only to the extent the Board grants Lilly’s Request on those issues.
`
`The ’209 patent is also at issue in IPR2016-00318, which was filed by
`
`Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and also has an oral argument scheduled for March 7,
`
`2017. IPR2016-00318, Paper 15 at 6. Neptune requests that the arguments for the
`
`Neptune IPRs and Sandoz IPR be scheduled as separate sequential arguments
`
`rather than as a combined oral hearing. Neptune believes the arguments should be
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`treated separately because Neptune is not a party to IPR2016-00318. Further, the
`
`Sandoz IPR was instituted on different grounds, specifically, obviousness of claims
`
`1-22 based on: (i) Calvert (Ex. 1007), Niyikiza I (Ex. 1006), Worzalla (Ex. 1013),
`
`European Patent Application No. 0 595 005 (“EP 005”) (Ex. 1033), and the ’974
`
`Patent (Ex. 1005); and (ii) Calvert (Ex. 1007), Niyikiza I (Ex. 1006), Hammond I
`
`(Ex. 1015), EP 005 (Ex. 1033), and the ’974 Patent (Ex. 1005) (IPR2016-00318,
`
`Paper No. 14, at 21). The Sandoz IPR also involves different evidence, including
`
`testimony from three different experts who did not present testimony in the
`
`Neptune IPRs. Thus, given the differences in the parties, grounds, and evidence
`
`between IPR2016-00237 and -00240 on one hand and IPR2016-00318 on the
`
`other, Neptune believes that separate sequential arguments are appropriate.
`
`Because of the technical complexity of the issues in dispute, Neptune,
`
`individually, requests sixty (60) minutes of time to address the issues. Should Lilly
`
`be granted more time for IPR2016-00237 and -00240, Neptune requests an equal
`
`amount of time as Lilly be allocated for Neptune.
`
`Neptune reserves the right for rebuttal. Neptune will inform the Board of its
`
`specific allocation of time for its opening and rebuttal at the beginning of the oral
`
`argument.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Neptune also requests the ability to use computers at counsel’s table to
`
`display demonstrative exhibits, and respectfully requests that PTAB provide a
`
`projector with VGA and HDMI connections for that purpose.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6601
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Dr. Parvathi Kota (Reg. No. 65,122)
`Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`2200 Ross Ave., Ste. 4800W
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6621
`
`Mieke K. Malmberg (pro hac vice
`requested)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`800 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`P: 213-788-4500/F: 213-788-4545
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Patent Owner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Request for Oral Argument, by electronic means on February 14, 2017 at the
`
`following addresses of record:
`
`Dov P. Grossman (Reg. No. 72,525)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5812
`Facsimile: 202-434-5029
`dgrossman@wc.com
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Adam L. Perlman (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5244
`Facsimile: 202-434-5029
`aperlman@wc.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`John C. Demeter (Reg. No. 30,167)
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
`Lilly Corporate Center
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`Direct Phone: 317-276-3785
`Facsimile: 317-276-3861
`demeter_john_c@lilly.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`David M. Krinsky (Reg. No. 72,339)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5338
`Facsimile: 202-480-8302
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`James P. Leeds (Reg. No. 35,241)
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
`Lilly Corporate Center
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`Direct Phone: 317-276-1667
`Facsimile: 317-277-6534
`leeds_james@lilly.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`John D. Polivick (Reg. No. 57,926)
`RAKOCZY MOLINO
`MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: 312-527-2157
`Fax: 312-527-4205
`jpolivick@rmmslegal.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apotex
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick C. Kilgore (Reg. No. 69,131)
`RAKOCZY MOLINO
`MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: 312-527-2157
`Fax: 312-527-4205
`pkilgore@rmmslegal.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner Apotex
`
`Mark D. Schuman (Reg. No. 31,197)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST AND SCHUMAN
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-436-9600
`Fax: 612-436-9605
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner Teva
`
`Patrick A. Doody
`(Reg. No. 35,002)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel: 703-770-7538
`Fax: 703-770-7901
`patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com
`Lead Counsel for Wockhardt Bio AG
`
`Deanne M. Mazzochi (Reg. No. 50,158)
`RAKOCZY MOLINO
`MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: 312-527-2157
`Fax: 312-527-4205
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner Apotex
`
`Gary J. Speier (Reg. No. 45,458)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST AND SCHUMAN
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-436-9600
`Fax: 612-436-9605
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Teva
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`(Reg. No. 45,458)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, New York 10018-1405
`Tel: 212-813-8800
`Fax: 212-355-3333
`chardman@goodwinprocter.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner Teva
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Sarah E. Spires/
`Sarah E. Spires (Reg. No. 61,501)
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`Bryan P. Collins
`(Reg. No. 43,560)
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Tel: 703-770-7755
`Fax: 703-770-7901
`bryan.collins@pillsburylaw.com
`Back-Up Counsel for Wockhardt Bio AG
`
`Dated: February 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
