UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`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).
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
