`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 (US 8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (US 8,642,556 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
`___________________
`
`BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE NATIVE AMERICAN
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COUNCIL, INC.
`REGARDING PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`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 IPR2017-00586 and IPR2017-00601 have respectively
`been joined with the captioned proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Amicus curiae Native American Intellectual Property Enterprise Council,
`
`Inc. (“NAIPEC”) submits this brief to address several issues raised in Petitioners’
`
`Opposition to the Patent Owner’s Motion to Dismiss (Paper No. 87, “Petitioners’
`
`Brief”). Specifically, NAIPEC submits the information below to provide the
`
`Board with more context in relation to Native American intellectual property
`
`efforts and technology transfer agreements. Any suggestion that these transactions
`
`are a “sham” is hyperbole, and a characterization that NAIPEC strongly disputes in
`
`view of its extensive experience with both Native American intellectual property
`
`agreements and the communities that they benefit.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. NAIPEC and the Importance of Native American
`Intellectual Property Agreements
`
`NAIPEC is a 501(c)(3) American Indian led non-profit organization that
`
`provides assistance to Native American inventors, Tribes, and Tribally-owned
`
`businesses in matters concerning intellectual property. NAIPEC was founded in
`
`2009 by David Petite, a successful Chippewa inventor. NAIPEC’s focus is to grow
`
`innovation and intellectual property within Native American communities and to
`
`protect and develop those interests economically for the benefit of these
`
`communities. A largely volunteer and pro-bono organization, NAIPEC’s activities
`
`range from providing expert advice and resources regarding business planning,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`development, and management of intellectual property assets to working with legal
`
`services companies to provide legal assistance in matters related to intellectual
`
`property. It also works to improve the lives of Native Americans through
`
`numerous educational workshops, partnerships, and community assistance.
`
`Native Americans have a proud history of entrepreneurship and
`
`inventorship. Cultivating intellectual property assets is an important strategic
`
`effort to foster the growth and success of Native American Tribes. Appropriation
`
`and outright theft of Native American inventions and ideas without attribution has
`
`occurred for hundreds of years. The curing of rubber, the game of Lacrosse,
`
`tortillas, potato chips, root beer, and innumerable planting, cultivation,
`
`crossbreeding, and cooking techniques and inventions were all Native American in
`
`origin, yet the Tribes saw little or no benefits aside from occasional lip service.
`
`Likewise, Native American Tribes wage a seemingly never-ending battle to
`
`prevent appropriation and resale of their artifacts by collectors and others
`
`attempting to profit from their heritage.2
`
`Given the substantial gaps in Native American education, business, and
`
`economic development, largely attributed to lack of funding in these key areas,
`
`Native American innovators and business developers need the ability and the
`
`
`2 These problems have been so pervasive that Congress has passed legislation to help the
`Native American Tribes, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,
`25 U.S.C. §§3001 et seq.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge to protect their intellectual property and seek out beneficial agreements
`
`with others who wish to do the same. In 2012, NAIPEC conducted an informal
`
`study at the United States Patent and Trademark Office and found that Native
`
`Americans fall far short of other minorities, and the population as a whole, in
`
`availing themselves of the protections offered by this body.3 Another study
`
`conducted by NAIPEC in 2011 and 2012, under a grant from the Native American
`
`Business Development Institute, likewise found that the vast majority of Economic
`
`Development professionals of various Tribes in the Great Plains region were
`
`unaware of either the importance of intellectual property or how to use the systems
`
`already established to protect intellectual property.4
`
`In relation to its efforts to facilitate the growth of intellectual property efforts
`
`for Native American Tribes, NAIPEC has worked with many Tribes, including the
`
`Navajo, Prairie Band Potowatami, Kickapoo, Winnebago, and Tohono O'odham,
`
`as well as organizations such as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dept.
`
`of the Interior, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, NASA, and The Scotts Company LLC.
`
`For nearly a decade, NAIPEC has assisted Tribes and businesses with technology
`
`ranging from agricultural inventions to scalable fuel manufacturing and
`
`technologies for the aerospace industry.
`
`
`3 http://nativeamericaninventors.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/HARMONY-White-Paper-
`04-13.pdf.
`
`4
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`One core area of NAIPEC’s activities has been to assist Tribes and other
`
`Native American individuals and organizations with technology transfer
`
`agreements with which to generate much-needed economic growth. NAIPEC
`
`believes that such agreements are valuable part of an asset portfolio and can be an
`
`important driver of education and business development for Tribes. NAIPEC has
`
`assisted numerous Tribes and other organizations with such agreements, some of
`
`which include:
`
` 2010: Providing technology transfer consulting advice for the
`
`Prairie Band Potowatami in Kansas, the Kickapoo Tribe in
`
`Kansas and The Winnebago Tribe in Nebraska in relation to a
`
`patented agricultural invention, AgriBoard;
`
` 2012: Providing technology transfer advice and counsel to the
`
`Navajo Tribe on their relationship with NASA; and
`
` 2013: Consulting and brokering a tech transfer arrangement
`
`between The Tohono O'odham Tribe in Arizona and a multi-
`
`national aerospace company.
`
`B.
`
`Patent-related Agreements Provide Significant Benefit to
`American Indian Tribes
`
`Technology transfer agreements — like those found in this case — are an
`
`important revenue component of many Tribes’ economic plans. NAIPEC has
`
`spent nearly a decade assisting Tribes and Tribally-owned businesses with these
`
`types of agreements. Contrary to suggestion that Native American intellectual
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`property agreements are a “sham,” these agreements provide significant, tangible
`
`benefits to the Tribes.
`
`As an organization very familiar with similar agreements and their positive
`
`affect on Native American Communities, the benefits to Native Americans are
`
`certainly legitimate and far from “insubstantial and illusory” from the perspective
`
`of Tribes. They provide vital support for one of the groups in most need of
`
`economic and educational assistance in the United States.
`
`Further, any suggestion that these agreements only came about in response
`
`to IPR proceedings or the AIA is likewise baseless. NAIPEC has been active since
`
`2009, working to provide benefits to Tribes and their partners well prior to the late-
`
`2012 enactment of the AIA, which initiated IPRs. NAIPEC itself has provided
`
`assistance on numerous technology transfer matters that predate the AIA and IPRs,
`
`as can be seen from the examples in §II.A. Through agreements like these — with
`
`or without the existence of IPRs — Tribes are able to provide legitimate benefits to
`
`real companies while addressing serious funding shortfalls for Native American
`
`Communities.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Native Americans Tribes are not only entitled, but encouraged, to enter into
`
`agreements and do business with the benefits of a sovereign nation in order to
`
`overcome significant historical disadvantages. Technology transfer agreements are
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`a legitimate part of many Tribes’ necessary economic plans to better their
`
`communities. These agreements are not “shams,” and, in fact, represent critical
`
`potential for economic advancement from the point of view of the Tribes that enter
`
`into them — an important factor that the Board should consider prior to any
`
`decision.
`
`DATED this 1st day of December, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ John C. Herman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN C. HERMAN
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
` & DOWD LLP
`CARLTON R. JONES
`Monarch Tower, Suite 1650
`3424 Peachtree Road, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30326
`Telephone: 404/504-6500
`Facsimile: 404/504-6501
`jherman@rgrdlaw.com
`cjones@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae Native American
`Intellectual Property Enterprise Council, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on December 1, 2017, a complete entire copy of the Brief of Amicus Curiae
`
`Native American Intellectual Property Enterprise Council, Inc. Regarding Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Dismiss was provided, via electronic service, to the persons
`
`named below at their address of record:
`
`Alfonso Chan
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMP LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`achan@ShoreChan.com
`Attorneys for Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`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
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Attorneys for Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`DATED this 1st day of December, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ John C. Herman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOHN C. HERMAN
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
` & DOWD LLP
`Monarch Tower, Suite 1650
`3424 Peachtree Road, N.E.
`Atlanta, GA 30326
`Telephone: 404/504-6500
`Facsimile: 404/504-6501
`jherman@rgrdlaw.com
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`