Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: December 8, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are common to the above-referenced cases.
`We, therefore, issue a single order that has been entered in each case. The
`parties may use this style caption when filing a single paper in multiple
`proceedings, provided that such caption includes a footnote attesting that
`“the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in
`the caption.”
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: December 8, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)1
`_______________
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are common to the above-referenced cases.
`We, therefore, issue a single order that has been entered in each case. The
`parties may use this style caption when filing a single paper in multiple
`proceedings, provided that such caption includes a footnote attesting that
`“the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in
`the caption.”
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`
`A. REQUEST FOR AN INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL
`Unless at least one of the parties requests otherwise, we will not
`conduct an initial conference call as described in the Office Patent Trial
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012). The
`parties must request an initial conference call if either party is aware of
`any conflicts or concerns with DUE DATE 7 set forth in the Appendix
`of this Scheduling Order. Any request for an initial conference call must
`be made no later than 25 days after the institution of trial and must comply
`with Section A of the Standing Order (Paper 9).
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate to different dates for DUE
`DATES 1 through 5 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE 6). A
`notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed due dates, must
`be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate to an extension of DUE
`DATES 6 and 7. Due to scheduling constraints, such as hearing room
`availability, the parties must request a conference call with the panel if there
`are any conflicts that arise with DUE DATE 7 as soon as practicable, which
`will be modified only upon a showing of good cause.
`In stipulating to different times, the parties should consider the effect
`of the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to
`supplement evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-
`examination (37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the
`evidence and cross-examination testimony.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`
`
`1. DUE DATE 1
`The patent owner may file—
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120), and
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`The patent owner must file any such response or motion to amend by DUE
`DATE 1. If the patent owner elects not to file anything, the patent owner
`must arrange a conference call with the parties and the Board. The patent
`owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the
`response will be deemed waived.
`2. DUE DATE 2
`The petitioner must file any reply to the patent owner’s response and
`opposition to the motion to amend by DUE DATE 2.
`3. DUE DATE 3
`The patent owner must file any reply to the petitioner’s opposition to
`patent owner’s motion to amend by DUE DATE 3.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`a. Each party must file any motion for an observation on the
`cross-examination testimony of a reply witness by DUE
`DATE 4.
`b. Each party must file any motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R
`§ 42.64(c)) by DUE DATE 4.
`c. Each party must file any request for oral argument (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(a)) by DUE DATE 4. In its request, the parties may
`state a preference for the location of the oral argument at either
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`
`
`the USPTO’s Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia or the
`Silicon Valley Office in San Jose, California.
`5. DUE DATE 5
`a. Each party must file any response to a party’s observations on
`cross-examination testimony by DUE DATE 5.
`b. Each party must file any opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 5.
`6. DUE DATE 6
`Each party must file any reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence by DUE DATE 6.
`7. DUE DATE 7
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) is set for DUE
`DATE 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ March 2, 2017
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................. May 25, 2017
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................. June 22, 2017
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .............................................................................. July 13, 2017
`Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .............................................................................. July 27, 2017
`Response to observation
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ........................................................................... August 3, 2017
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ......................................................................... August 17, 2017
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2); IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2);
`IPR2016-01129 (US 8,624,556 B2); IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2);
`IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2); IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`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
`
`
`6
`
`
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
