`
`The opinion in support of the decision being
`entered today is not binding precedent of the Board.
`
`'
`
`Filed by: Trial Section Merits Panel
`Box Interference
`w h'ngton, D.C.
`
`'I‘:I:1 703-308-9797
`
`Fax:
`
`703-305-0942
`
`20231
`
`'
`
`Filed
`425 July 2001
`
`Paper 16*
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.
`
`UNI_TED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`P.
`0
`
`.
`JUL 2 5 zoo:
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD :OF PATENT APPEALS-
`1
`AND INTEREERENCES
`
`
`PAT. &T.M.OFF!CE
`-
`BOARD OF PAT
`AND INTERF%wE3EE§ALs
`
`SHMUEL CABILLY, HERBERT L. HEYNEKER, WILLIAM E. HOLMES,
`'-
`ARTHUR D. RIGGS and RONALD B. WETZEL,
`
`_Junior Party,
`‘(Application 07/205,419),
`
`v.’
`
`JOHN H. KENTEN,
`MICHAEL A. BOSS,
`JOHN S. EMTAGE.and CLIVE R. WOOD,
`
`Senior Party‘
`(Patent 4,816,397).
`
`,
`
`Patent Interference l02,572_(McK)
`
`Before: MCKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
`SCHAFER and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`FINAL ORDER AFTER DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT_
`
`A.
`
`Introduction
`
`On 1 June 2001,
`
`the board received the following papers
`
`filed by Cabilly:
`
`1.
`
`CABILLY REQUEST 150R ASSIGNMENT TO NEW APJ
`
`[ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE]
`
`(Paper 63).
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 442
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 442
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Certified copy of a NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT
`
`REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT INSTRUMENTS filed
`
`on 6 March 2001 in the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California in-
`
`Inc. v. Celltech Thera eutics Ltd.,
`Genentech
`
`
`Civil Action No. C 98-3926 MC (WDB)
`
`(Paper 66).
`
`3.
`
`Certified copy of an ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF
`INTERFERENCE filed in the district court on
`
`16 March 2001 (Paper 67).
`
`4.
`
`Certified copy of a JUDGMENT filed in the district
`
`court on 16 March 2001 (Paper 68).
`
`At some point,
`the board also received a copy of the docket
`entries in the district court through 16 March 2001 (paper 65).
`
`The ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE and JUDGMENT
`
`appear to have been drafted by the attorneys and were thereafter
`
`In drafting
`presented to the district court for consideration.
`the order and judgment, it would appear that the attorneys did
`
`not take into account
`
`(1) relevant provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 135(a) and 146 and (2) binding precedent of the Federal
`
`Circuit, e.g., Gould V. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1079,
`
`3 USPQ2d
`
`1302, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 154
`
`USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967). Nevertheless, we will attempt to take
`
`action consistent with the district Court's judgment to the
`
`extent possible and consistent with law.
`
`B.
`
`Assignment of administrative patent judge (APJ)
`
`During its pendency before the board,
`
`the interference was
`
`assigned (37 CFR § 1.610)
`
`to former Administrative Patent Judge
`
`Mary F. Downey.
`
`Judge Downey recently retired. Accordingly,
`
`the
`
`- 2
`
`_
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 443
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 443
`
`
`
`interference has been assigned to Senior Administrative Patent
`
`Judge Fred E. McKe1vey.
`
`37 CFR § 1.610(b).
`
`C.
`
`Finding of fact
`
`The record supports the following findings by at least a
`
`preponderance of the evidence:
`
`11
`
`The interference, declared 28 February 1991,
`
`involves Cabilly application 07/205,419"versustBoss patent
`
`4,816,397.
`
`2.
`
`The Cabilly application is owned by Genentech,
`
`Inc.
`
`A
`
`‘
`
`3.
`
`The Boss patent is owned by Celltech R&D Ltd.,
`
`formerly Celltech Therapeutics, Ltd.
`
`(Paper 64, page 2).
`
`4.
`
`The claims of the parties are:
`
`a.
`b.
`
`Cabillyi
`‘Boss:
`
`-
`
`101-1342
`1-18
`
`5.
`
`The claims of the parties designated as
`
`corresponding to the count,3 and therefore involved in the
`
`interference (35 U.S.C. §_l35(a)), are:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Cabilly:
`
`101-120
`
`Boss:
`
`1-18
`
`We note that the Cabilly application is misidentified as application
`‘
`O§/205,419 in note 1 on page 1 of a FINAL DECISION entered 13 August 1998
`(Paper 57).
`
`2 Cabilly application Paper 12, pages 1-5 (copy attached).
`
`3
`
`A count defines the interfering subject matter.
`
`37 CFR § 1.601(f).
`
`_ 3
`
`_
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 444
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 444
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The claims of the parties designated as not
`
`corresponding to the count are}
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Cabilly:
`
`121-134
`
`-
`
`Boss:
`
`None
`
`7.
`
`On 20 September 1991, after the interference was
`
`declared, Cabilly submitted an INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT’
`
`(IDS)
`
`(App1’n Paper 17——copy attached) citing prior art not
`
`previously cited during prosecution before the examiner.
`
`8.
`
`Insofar as we can tell,
`
`the IDS does not appear to
`
`have been considered by an examiner. Nor is it apparent that the
`
`examiner has assessed the correctness of allegations in the IDS
`
`to the effect that certain prior art cited in the IDS is
`
`"cumulative" to other prior art said to have been considered by
`
`the examiner.‘
`
`9.
`
`A final decision (i.e , a final agency action) was
`
`entered by a merits panel? of the board on 13 August 1998.
`
`Cabilly V. Boss, 55 USPQ2d 1238 (Ed. Pat. App. & Int. 1998)
`
`(Paper 57).
`
`10.
`
`In its final decision,
`
`the board determined that
`
`Cabilly had failed to sustain its burden of establishing priority
`
`Jurisdiction over the application transfers to the board upon
`‘
`declaration of an interference.
`37 CFR § 1.614. Hence,
`there is no reason to
`believe that the examiner would have had occasion to consider papers filed in
`connection with the application after declaration of the interference.
`
`The merits panel consisted of former Administrative Patent Judges
`5
`Ronald H. Smith and Mary F. Downey (both now retired) and Administrative
`Patent Judge Richard E. Schafer.
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 445
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 445
`
`
`
`vis—a—vis Boss. Accordingly,
`
`the board entered judgment against
`
`Cabilly.
`
`11.
`
`On 9 October 1998, Cabilly timely sought judicial
`
`review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`I46 by civil action filed in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California
`
`(district court). Genentech,
`
`Inc. v. Celltech Therapeutics,
`
`Ltd., Civil Action No. C 98-3926 MMC (WDB)
`
`(Paper 65, page 2,
`
`entry 1).
`
`12.
`
`On 16 March 2001,
`
`the district court entered
`
`(1) an ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE6 (Paper 67)
`
`and (2) a JUDGMENT (Paper 68).
`
`\
`
`13.
`
`In its ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE,
`
`the district court determined "that Genentech is entitled as a
`
`matter of law to priority over Celltech to the invention
`
`The district
`lines 27-28);
`(page 3,
`described by the count"
`court's determination appears to have been based on a Cabilly'
`
`draft application, dated 25 February 1983, which (1)
`
`is said to
`
`have been uncovered during discovery and (2) was not presented
`
`We have not proofread the documents drafted by the attorneys for
`6
`consideration by the district court. However, we note at least the following
`error in the ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE:
`on page 2,
`line 24
`Genentech’s issued patent is identified as U.S. Patent 4,816,517 when it
`appears it should have been identified as U.S. Patent 4,816,5§7. We also note
`at least the following error in the NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND JOINT REQUEST FOR
`ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT INSTRUMENTS:
`on page 1,
`line 27,
`the Cabilly application
`is identified as application 07/215,419 when it appears it should been
`identified as application 07/295,419.
`
`_ 5 _
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 446
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 446
`
`
`
`to, or considered by,
`
`the board in entering its final decision on
`
`13 August 1998.’
`
`14.
`
`In its judgment,
`
`the district court "orders
`
`and adjudges that the following shall occur simultaneously"
`
`(Paper 64, pages 1-2):
`
`a.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(USPTO)
`
`is directed to vacate the PTO’s decision in Cabilly v.
`
`Boss in Interference 102,572.
`
`"
`
`b.
`
`The USPTO is directed to "revoke and vacate
`
`United states Patent No. 4,816,397 ***" issued to Boss.
`
`c.
`
`The USPTO is directed to "grant and issue to
`
`Genentech’s Inventors (with Genentech as the assignee) with the
`
`issue date being the same as the date of revocation of United
`
`States Patent No. 4,816,397, a United States patent having ***
`
`claims 101-120 that were allowed by the PTO in Genentech’s
`
`pending United States Patent Application No. 07/205,419 ***."
`
`15.
`
`A certified copy of the district court's judgment
`
`was received by the board on 1 June 2001 (Paper 63).
`
`16. According to Cabilly’s request for assignment of a
`
`new APJ
`
`(Paper 63):
`
`In light of the complexity of the Order accompanying ***
`
`[the] district court[’s] Judgment,
`
`the parties ***
`
`lines
`(Page 3,
`(See ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE,
`7
`The parties do not appear to have asked the district court to
`10-26).
`address, and the district court did not appear to have considered,
`the issue
`of whether Genentech and Cabilly were diligent from the time the interference
`was declared in attempting to find the draft, which is now said to be
`dispositive. We do not address the issue of whether a lack of diligence might
`have been a basis for the district court to have exercised its discretion to
`decline to admit in evidence the draft.
`§§§, e.g., Kirschke v. Lamar, 426
`F.2d 870, 165 USPQ 679 (8th Cir. 1970). we will note that if a patent is
`issued to Cabilly, its term will begin to run now and the public has already
`been subject to patents rights of Boss since 1989, and that the interference
`has been pending since 1991.
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 447
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 447
`
`
`
`respectfully request that after an APJ has been assigned [to
`
`the interference,] but before the Judgment *** [of]
`
`the
`
`district court is effected, a conference call be scheduled
`so that the parties and the APJ may discuss this matter.
`
`‘
`
`17.
`
`The time for filing an appeal,
`
`in this case to the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
`
`from the
`
`judgment of the district court is 30 days.
`
`Fed. R. App. P.
`
`4(a)(l)(A).
`The time for filing an appeal
`from the judgment of
`the district court entered 16 March 2001 expired sometime in
`
`April of 2001.
`
`D.
`
`Discussion
`
`‘
`
`AS noted earlier, The ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF
`
`INTERFERENCE and JUDGMENT appear to have been drafted by the
`attorneys and were thereafter presented to the district court for
`consideration.
`In drafting the order and judgment, we again note
`
`that it would appear that the attorneys did not take into account
`
`(1) relevant provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 135(a) and 146 and (2)
`
`binding precedent of the Federal Circuit, e.g., Gould v. Quigg,
`
`822 F.2d 1074, 1079,
`
`3 USPQ2d 1302, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In
`
`re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1967). We will
`
`attempt to take action consistent with the district court's
`
`judgment to the extent possible and consistent with law.
`
`1.
`
`Order to vacate decision
`
`The district court's order directs the USPTO (board?)
`
`to
`
`vacate its decision in Cabilly V. Boss in Interference 102,572.
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 448
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 448
`
`
`
`\.
`
`.
`
`The judgment does not identify the precise board "decision"
`
`to be vacated. We believe that the district court sought to have
`
`the board vacate its final decision awarding priority to Boss.
`
`-
`
`The board's final decision (Paper 57) was entered on 13 August
`
`1998. Accordingly, an order will be entered vacating the final
`
`decision entered 13 August 1998.
`
`2. Order to "revoke and vacate" a patent
`
`The district court directs the USPTO “to revoke and vacate"
`
`U.S. Patent 4,816,397,
`
`the Boss patent
`
`involved in the
`
`interference.
`
`Nothing in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 135(a) relating to the board's
`
`jurisdiction over interferences and nothing in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 146
`
`relating to judicial review of a decision of the board in
`
`interference matters, authorizes the board or a court to "revoke
`
`and vacate" a patent.3 _Section l35(a) provides, however,
`
`that
`
`,"[a] final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or
`
`other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute
`
`cancellation of the claims involved in the patent ***.”
`
`While the matter is not absolutely free from doubt, we have
`
`construed the district court's judgment as a final decision of
`
`the district court.
`
`The judgment has all the indicia of being
`
`final in the sense that it rules in favor of Cabilly and against
`
`Boss.
`
`The "judgment" is "set forth on a separate document" as
`
`The only basis of which we are aware for "revoking" a patent would be
`B
`an action by the United States alleging that the patent was procured on the
`basis of a fraud.
`See, e.g., United States v. Saf-T-Boom Corp., 431 F.2d 737,
`167 USPQ 195 (8th Cir. 1970), and Supreme Court cases cited therein.
`
`_
`
`3
`
`_
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 449
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 449
`
`
`
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Moreover, as is apparent from
`
`the fl 10 of ORDER REGARDING RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE (Paper 67,
`
`page 3,
`
`lines 27-28),
`
`the district court held that Genentech
`
`_
`
`(i e., Cabilly)
`
`is entitled to priority of invention vis-a—vis
`
`Celltech (i e., Boss). ~Given that review of the board's priority
`
`determination was the issue in the civil action under § 146 and
`
`that issue was resolved in favor of Cabilly, we have construed
`
`the district court's judgment as being final.
`
`The time for appeal to the Federal Circuit from the judgment
`
`of the district court expired sometime in April 2001.
`
`A
`
`certified copy of the district court's judgment was not received
`
`by the board under 1 June 200l——well after the time for appeal
`
`had expired.
`
`The time for appeal having expired sometime in
`
`April of 2001, it manifestly follows as a matter of law that the
`
`claims of the Boss patent designated as corresponding to the
`count, i.e.,
`involved in the interference to use the words of
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ l35(a), have been cancelled since sometime in April
`
`of 2001.
`
`The only action which needs to be taken by the USPTO in
`
`the future is to comply with that part of § 135(a) which
`
`provides, with respect to cancelled patent claims,
`
`that "notice
`
`of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent
`
`distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office."
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 450
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 450
`
`
`
`9
`
`I
`
`3.
`
`Order to grant and issue patent to Genentech
`
`a.
`
`The attorneys drafted an order for consideration by the
`
`district court which directs the USPTO to "grant and issue" a
`
`patent to Cabilly. Under even a most expansive reading of
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 146, nowhere does a district court have jurisdiction
`
`to order the granting of a patent: What
`
`§ 146 says is that a
`
`"[j]udgment of the [district] court in favor of the right of an
`
`applicant to a patent shall authorize the Director to issue such
`
`patent on the filing *** of a certified copy of the judgment and
`
`on compliance with the requirements of law." Similar‘language in
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 145 (involving civil actions where the Director is a
`
`party), has been construed by the Federal Circuit as not
`
`authorizing a district court to order the Director (then
`
`Commissioner)
`
`to issue a patent. Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074,
`
`1079,
`
`3 USPQ2d 1302, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`In this particular
`
`case, compliance with the requirements of law, among other
`
`things,
`
`in this case would involve (1) acting on Cabilly claims
`
`121-134 which are also present in the Cabilly application
`
`(35 U.S.C. §§ 131 and 132),
`
`(2)
`
`issuance of a notice of allowance
`
`(35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 151, first paragraph) and (3)
`
`timely payment of the
`
`issue fee required by law (35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 151, second paragraph).
`
`b.
`
`Moreover, under well—established principles, a favorable
`
`decision on judicial review does not mean that the Director may
`
`-10-
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 451
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 451
`
`
`
`not reject claims in an application on the basis of a ground not
`
`involved in judicial review.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`In re Ruschi , 379 F.2d
`
`990, 154 USPQ 118 (CCPA 1957) .9
`
`-
`
`In this case, it is Q9; clear that an examiner has
`
`considered additional prior art called to the attention of the
`
`USPTO by Cabilly afggr the interference was declared; Upon
`
`termination of the interference,
`
`the application is returned to
`
`.
`
`the examiner. At that point the examiner would determine what
`
`action,
`
`if any, might be warranted on the basis of the IDS filed
`
`by Cabilly.
`
`If no further adverse merits action (e g., a
`
`rejection)
`
`is deemed appropriate by the examiner,
`
`then a notice
`
`of allowance would be issued and Cabilly would be free to pay the
`
`issue fee.
`
`4.
`
`"Simultaneous" action7
`
`The district court has ordered that certain action "occur
`
`simultaneously".
`
`The attorneys who presented the draft judgment
`
`to the district court should have known that they were asking the
`
`district court
`
`(1)
`
`to take an action which is for all practical
`
`purposes not administratively possible, and (2)
`
`in effect,
`
`to
`
`mandamus the Director and the board with respect
`
`to issues not
`
`involved in the civil action.
`
`The claims of the Boss application have now been cancelled
`
`by operation of law.
`
`A patent could not have issued to Cabilly
`
`until
`
`(1)
`
`the board's final decision was vacated (which occurs
`
`Ruschig is binding Federal Circuit precedent.
`9
`States, 690 F.2d 1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982).
`
`South Corp. v. United
`
`-11-
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 452
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 452
`
`
`
`today) and (2)
`
`the Boss claims were cancelled (which occurred.
`
`sometime in April of 2001). Basically,
`
`the attorneys attempted
`
`to have the district court superintend the affairs on the USPTO.
`
`We cannot
`
`imagine that the district court intended to superintend
`
`the affairs of the USPTO.
`
`We note that the district court has retained limited
`
`jurisdiction in this matter.
`
`In the event of further proceedings
`
`in the district court, we recommend that the attorneys consult
`
`with the Office of the General Counsel of the USPTO so that a
`
`determination can be made as to whether the Director should
`
`intervene (S 146 gives the Director a right to intervene).
`Alternatively,
`the district court might wish to exercise its
`
`discretion by inviting the Director to file such papers as the
`district court might deem appropriate to aid it in resolving the
`
`interference.
`
`E.
`
`Order
`
`Upon consideration of the relevant record,
`
`including:
`
`l.
`
`the CABILLY REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT TO NEW APJ
`
`[ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE]
`
`(Paper 63);
`
`2.
`
`the certified copy of a NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
`
`JOINT REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT INSTRUMENTS
`
`filed on 6 March 2001 in the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California in Genentech,
`
`Inc. v. Celltech
`
`Therapeutics, Ltd., Civil Action No. C 98-3926 MMC
`
`(WDB)
`
`(Paper 66);
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 453
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 453
`
`
`
`1.
`
`.
`
`-3.
`
`the certified copy of an ORDER REGARDING
`
`RESOLUTION OF INTERFERENCE filed in the district
`
`court on 16 March 2001 (Paper 67);
`
`4.
`
`the certified copy of a JUDGMENT entered in the *
`
`district court on 16 March 2001 (Paper 68);
`
`5.
`
`the copy of the docket entries in the district
`
`court through 16 March 2001 (Paper 65); and
`
`6.
`
`the INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (Cabilly
`
`appl'n paper 17),
`
`and for the reasons given, it is
`
`ORDERED that the request for a conference call with the
`
`administrative patent judge assigned to the interference is
`
`denied, without prejudice to a conference call being placed by
`
`counsel upon receipt of this order.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the FINAL DECISION of the board
`
`entered in this interference on 13 August 1998 (Paper 57)
`vacated.
`
`is
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the judgment of
`
`the district court
`
`(which is now final),
`
`judgment on priority as
`
`to Count 1,
`
`the sole count in the interference,
`
`is now awarded
`
`against senior party MICHAEL A. BOSS,
`
`JOHN H. KENTEN,
`
`JOHN S.
`
`EMTAGE and CLIVE R. WOOD (Ce1ltech R&D, Ltd.).
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that senior party MICHAEL A. BOSS,
`
`JOHN
`
`H. KENTEN,
`
`JOHN S. EMTAGE and CLIVE R. WOOD is not entitled to a
`
`patent containing claims 1-18 (corresponding to Count 1) of U.S.
`
`Patent 4,816,397,
`
`issued 28 March 1989, based on application
`
`05/572,255, filed 14 November 1984.
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 454
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 454
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made
`
`of record in files of application 07/205,419 and U.S. Patent
`
`4,816,397.
`
`'
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than 10 August 2001,
`
`the
`
`Clerk shall forward the Cabilly application to the examiner for
`
`such further action as may be appropriate consistent with the
`
`views expressed herein,
`
`including such action as the examiner may
`
`deem appropriate with respect to Cabilly claims 121-134 which
`
`were not
`
`involved in the interference.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement
`
`agreement, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`l35(c) and 37 CFR
`
`§ 1.661.
`
`ms»/<
`
`FRED E. MCKELVEY, Senior
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`RICHARD E. SCHAFER
`
`Administrative Patent J dge
`
`CHARD TORCZON
`
`Administrative Pate
`
`
`\/\/~.z\z\.z\z\z\a\¢\/xi‘/xi
`
`BOARD OF PATENT
`APPEALS AND
`
`INTERFERENCES
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 455
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 455
`
`
`
`1.
`
`D
`
`102572
`(via fax-—without attachments
`and Federal Express--with attachments)
`
`Attorney for Cabilly
`(real party in interest
`Genentech, Inc.):
`
`R. Danny Huntington, Esq.
`BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS, L.L.P.
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA
`22314
`
`Tel:
`Fax:
`
`703-836-6620
`703-836-0028
`
`Attorney for Boss
`(real party in interest
`Calltech R&D, Ltd.,
`formerly
`Calltech Therapeutics, Ltd.):
`
`Eric S. Walters, Esq.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`755 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA
`94304-1081
`
`Tel:
`FaX:.
`
`650-813-5865
`650-494-0792
`
`Sanofi/Regeneron Ex. 1015, pg 456
`
`Mylan Ex. 1015, pg 456