throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper: 76
`Entered: September 19, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC., and AKORN INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`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) 1,2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in the identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case.
`2 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 IPR2017-00586 and
`IPR2017-00601, have respectively been joined with the captioned
`proceedings.
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2).
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`In an email correspondence sent to the Board September 8, 2017,
`Alfonso G. Chan, counsel for the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“Tribe”),
`requested a conference call to notify the Board of Tribe’s acquisition of all
`the patents at issue in these proceedings and to discuss the application of
`Tribe’s alleged tribal sovereign immunity from inter partes review
`proceedings. The relevant portion of the email reads as follows:
`The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“Tribe”), whom my firm
`independently represents in this matter, now owns all the patents
`at issue in the above proceedings. A few moments ago, the Tribe
`filed Updated Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3)
`to inform the Board of this change and my addition to the case as
`counsel for the Tribe. Paper No. 63 in IPR2016-01127; EX. 2085
`(Assignment).
`Because of these changes, the Tribe respectfully requests
`a telephone conference to discuss two topics: (1) permission to
`file a motion to dismiss based on the Tribe’s sovereign immunity
`and (2) a continuance of the hearing scheduled for September 15,
`2017 to allow for briefing and the Board’s consideration of the
`motion to dismiss.
`A conference call was held on September 11, 2017 between respective
`counsel for Petitioners, Allergan, Tribe, and Judges Snedden, Hulse, and
`Paulraj. On the call, Tribe requested authorization to file a motion to
`dismiss on the basis of Tribe’s alleged tribal sovereign immunity. Tribe also
`requested that the hearing for these cases, scheduled for September 15, 2017,
`be postponed, because tribal sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional issue and
`must be decided before these cases may proceed. Petitioners opposed both
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2).
`
`requests. A full transcript of the conference call was entered by Tribe and
`Petitioners. Ex. 2090 (Tribe); Ex. 1137 (Petitioners).3
`After hearing the respective positions of the parties, the panel
`conferred and concluded that briefing on the issue of Tribe’s alleged tribal
`sovereign immunity from these proceedings is warranted. Accordingly, the
`panel authorized Tribe to file a motion to terminate on the basis of tribal
`sovereign immunity of no more than 25 pages due by September 22, 2017.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72. The panel authorized Petitioners to file an opposition to
`the motion, also of no more than 25 pages due by October 13, 2017. Tribe is
`authorized to file a reply to the opposition of no more than 15 pages due by
`October 20, 2017. Evidence relevant to the tribal sovereign immunity issue
`may be filed as exhibits accompanying the papers.
`In order to permit the parties time to brief this issue, Tribe’s request to
`postpone the hearing in these cases is granted. If any party has concerns or
`questions regarding the schedule, the parties may contact the Board to
`request a conference call.
`Accordingly, it is:
` ORDERED, that Tribe is authorized to file a motion to terminate
`these proceedings. The motion shall be no more than 25 pages, and is due
`no later than September 22, 2017;
` FURTHER ORDERED, that Petitioners may file an opposition to the
`motion to terminate. The opposition shall be no more than 25 pages, and is
`due no later than October 13, 2017;
`
`3 Paper numbers and exhibits refer to those filed in IPR2016-01127. Similar
`papers and exhibits were filed in each of the other cases.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2).
`
`
` FURTHER ORDERED, that Tribe is authorized to file a reply to the
`opposition. The reply shall be no more than 15 pages, and is due no later
`than October 20, 2017; and
`FURTHER ORDERED, that Tribe’s request to postpone the oral
`hearing scheduled for September 15, 2017 is granted.
`
`
`PETITIONER MYLAN:
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Michael Kane
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`whelan@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`Alfonso Chan
`Joseph DePumpo
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`achan@shorechan.com
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket