`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA,
`INC., and AKORN INC.1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2)
`__________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON
`LITIGATION WAIVER
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00576 and IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-00596,
`
`IPR2017-00579 and IPR2017-00598, IPR2017-00583 and IPR2017-00599,
`
`IPR2017-00585 and IPR2017-00600, and IPR2017-00601., have respectively been
`
`joined with the captioned proceedings. The word-for-word identical page is filed in
`
`each proceeding identified in the caption pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 10).
`
`
`
`The Board’s rulings in Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`
`IPR2017-01186 (Paper 14) (“Ericsson”) and LSI Corp. v. Regents of the University
`
`of Minnesota, IPR2017-01068 (Paper 19) are wrongly decided. “Immunity
`
`encompasses not merely whether [a sovereign] may be sued, but where it may
`
`be sued,” even when multiple forums are available. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
`
`v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984).
`
`Mylan contends the IPR is the same as a “mirror-image” counterclaim, which in
`
`some circumstances, can be asserted against a tribe. When filing suit, a tribe does
`
`not waive immunity, even to compulsory counterclaims. Okla. Tax Comm’n v.
`
`Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991); United
`
`States v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 309 U.S. 506, 513 (1940) (“Possessing ...
`
`immunity from direct suit, we are of the opinion [the Indian nations] possess a
`
`similar immunity from cross-suit.”).
`
`A mirror-image claim means exactly thatmatters that must be resolved and
`
`are presumed to be at issue in a case based on the claims of the tribe. “Having
`
`placed a question before the court, a sovereign acknowledges the court’s authority
`
`to resolve that question, whether in favor of the sovereign or in favor of a
`
`counterclaimant seeking the opposite resolution.” Tohono O’odham Nation v.
`
`Ducey, 174 F.Supp.3d 1194, 1204 (D. Az. 2016). “A tribe’s waiver of sovereign
`
`immunity may be limited to the issues necessary to decide the action brought by
`
`
`
`the tribe; the waiver is not necessarily broad enough to encompass related matters,
`
`even if those matters arise from the same set of underlying facts.” McClendon v.
`
`United States, 885 F.2d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 1989).
`
`This IPR does not fall within the mirror-image counterclaim exception. IPRs
`
`are not counterclaims. Ericsson at 8 n.4. Resolution of the district court case does
`
`not rely upon resolution of the IPR claims. EX. 1165. An IPR is a separate
`
`proceeding that can be filed whether or not a district court action is filed, and it
`
`presents legal questions that are different than a counterclaim in the district court.
`
`Ericsson at 11. Thus, waiver cannot extend from one proceeding to another.
`
`Biomedical Patent Management Corp. v. California Dept. of Health Services, 505
`
`F.3d 1328, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir 2007) (proceeding not continuous so as to apply
`
`waiver in each forum). And even if the two proceedings are related, there is a
`
`bright-line rule for tribes: “[P]articipation in an administrative proceeding does not
`
`waive tribal immunity in an action filed by another party seeking review of the
`
`agency’s decision.” Kescoli v. Babbit, 101 F.3d 1304, 1310 (9th Cir. 1996);
`
`Quileute Indian Tribe v. Babbitt, 18 F.3d 1456, 1459–60 (9th Cir.1994). See also
`
`Contour Spa at the Hard Rock v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 692 F.3d 1200, 1208-
`
`1209 (11th Cir. 2012) (adhering to Potowatomi, rejecting application of Lapides to
`
`tribes); Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, 832 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th
`
`Cir. 2016) (same). Thus, the Board’s Ericsson “logic” cannot apply here.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Alfonso Chan /
`Alfonso Chan
`Reg. No. 45,964
`achan@shorechan.com
`Michael Shore*
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Christopher Evans*
`cevans@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Marsha Schmidt*
`Attorney at Law
`14928 Perrywood Drive
`Burtonsville, MD 20866
`marsha@mkschmidtlaw.com
`Tel: (301) 949-5176
`*admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on January 12, 2018, a complete and entire copy of Patent Owner’s
`
`Supplemental Brief on Litigation Waiver was provided, via electronic service, to
`
`the Petitioners by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
` sparmelee@wsgr.com
` mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`One Market Street, Spear Tower Floor 33
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`
`Douglas H. Carsten
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`1700 K Street NW, 5th Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brandon M. White
`Crystal Canterbury
`Charles G. Curtis, Jr.
`Jennifer MacLean
`Benjamin S. Sharp
`Shannon M. Bloodworth
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th Street NW
`Washington DC 20005
`bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`ccanterbury@perkinscoie.com
`ccurtis@perkinscoie.com
`jmaclean@perkinscoie.com
`bsharp@perkinscoie.com
`sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`
`Eric D. Miller
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`emiller@perkinscoie.com
`
`Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`
`And upon the remaining Petitioners as follows:
`
`
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk
`Azy S. Kokabi
`Travis B. Ribar
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`akokabi@sughrue.com
`tribar@sughrue.com
`
`Attorneys for Akorn Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Mark D. Schuman
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`IPRCyclosporine@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Alfonso G. Chan/
`Alfonso G. Chan
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`(214) 593-9110
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`