`Daniel R. Evans, Esq.
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`devans@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2500
`Main Facsimile: (703) 684-2501
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. To Be Assigned
`Patent No. RE38,551
`_____________________
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................. 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ............................................................. 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate ............................................................................. 8
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s Ability to complete the
`Review in a Timely Manner .................................................................... 9
`
`Joinder will promote Efficiency by consolidating Issues and
`preventing Inconsistencies .................................................................... 14
`
`D. Without Joinder, Breckenridge may be prejudiced ............................. 14
`
`E.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Argentum and will
`benefit the Interests of the Public ......................................................... 15
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge” or the
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b) of the above-captioned inter partes review directed to Claims
`
`1-13 of U.S. Patent No. RE38,551 (hereinafter “Breckenridge IPR”) with the
`
`pending inter partes review concerning the same patent and the same grounds of
`
`invalidity in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research Corporation
`
`Technologies, Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00204 (hereinafter “Argentum IPR”), which
`
`was instituted on May 23, 2016 (Paper No. 19).1
`
`The instant Motion for Joinder on behalf of Breckenridge is consistent with
`
`the substance of Motion for Joinder of Claims 1-13 of the '551 patent filed on
`
`behalf of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. in IPR2016-01101, Paper No. 3 (hereinafter
`
`“Mylan IPR”). To the extent the Motion for Joinder (Paper No. 3) filed on behalf
`
`of Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. in IPR2016-01101 is granted, Breckenridge
`
`requests this Motion for Joinder of Claims 1-13 also be granted, as the arguments
`
`and substance are essentially the same. Joinder is appropriate because it will
`
`promote efficient and consistent resolution of the validity of a single patent and
`
`will not prejudice any of the parties to the instituted Argentum IPR (IPR2016-
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. RE38,551 (hereafter "the '551 patent") is purportedly assigned to
`
`Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. ("Patent Owner").
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`00204) or the pending Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101). This Motion for Joinder is
`
`timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), as it is submitted within one month
`
`of May 23, 2016, the date of institution of the Argentum IPR. (IPR2016-00204).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Breckenridge is not aware of any reexamination certificates
`
`concerning the '551 patent, which is the subject of the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-
`
`00204), the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101), and the present Breckenridge IPR
`
`petition. However, Breckenridge is aware of Ex Parte Reexamination Control No.
`
`90/013,709 involving the '551 patent that was recently ordered.
`
`2.
`
`On July 10, 2013, Patent Owner and others filed a complaint
`
`accusing Breckenridge of infringing the '551 patent. UCB, Inc., UCB Pharma
`
`GmbH, Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., and Harris FRC Corporation v.
`
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Vennoot Pharmaceuticals, LLC, C.A. No.
`
`1:3-cv-01211-UNA (D. Del.).
`
`3.
`
`On July 10, 2014, Breckenridge (as a co-Petitioner) filed a petition
`
`for an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the '551 patent on different grounds
`
`than those in the instant Breckenridge IPR petition. Actavis, Inc., Actavis
`
`Laboratories FL, Inc., Actavis Pharma, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
`
`Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo Pharma LTD., Aurobindo
`
`Pharma USA, Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vennoot Pharmaceuticals,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`LLC, Sandoz Pharma Global FZE, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, LTD. v.
`
`Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., IPR2014-01126 ("the Actavis IPR").
`
`4.
`
`On January 9, 2015, the Board declined to institute a review on the
`
`grounds pursued in IPR2014-01126. The grounds that were declined institution
`
`differ from the grounds on which joinder is sought in this motion.
`
`5.
`
`On November 23, 2015, Argentum filed its petition for inter partes
`
`review of the '551 patent. (Argentum IPR, IPR2016-00204).
`
`6.
`
`The Argentum IPR petition (IPR2016-00204) included eight grounds
`
`for challenging the validity of the '551 patent:
`
`Ground 1A: Claims 1 and 3-8 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on the
`
`Ground That They Are Anticipated by LeGall;
`
`Ground 1B: Claims 2 and 9 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over LeGall and the ‘729 patent;
`
`Ground 2A: Claims 1-9 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Choi and Kohn 1991;
`
`Ground 2B: Claims 10-13 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Choi, Kohn 1991, and the ‘729 patent;
`
`Ground 3A: Claims 1-9 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Kohn 1991 and Silverman;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground 3B: Claims 10-13 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Kohn 1991, Silverman, and the ‘729
`
`patent;
`
`Ground 4A: Claims 1-9 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Cortes and Kohn 1991; and,
`
`Ground 4B: Claims 10-13 are Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the Ground
`
`That They Are Rendered Obvious Over Cortes, Kohn 1991, and the ‘729 patent.
`
`(Argentum IPR, IPR2016-00204, Paper No. 2 at p. 21-52).
`
`7.
`
`On February 10, 2016, Argentum moved to substitute a replacement
`
`Petition (Paper 8) to correct a typographical error in the figure under the heading
`
`for Ground 2A on page 34 of the Argentum IPR petition (IPR2016-00204; Exhibits
`
`1036 & 1037).
`
`8.
`
`On February 25, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`Paper 9 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`9.
`
`The Board instituted the Argentum IPR on May 23, 2016 on Grounds
`
`3A and 3B. (Argentum IPR, IPR2016-00204, Paper 19 at 23-24).
`
`10.
`
`On May 25, 2016, Mylan filed its motion for joinder and its petition
`
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1-13 on the same grounds, the same prior art,
`
`expert testimony, and other evidence relied on by the Board in instituting review of
`
`claims 1-13 in IPR2016-00204. (Mylan IPR, IPR2016-01101, Paper No. 3).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`As with the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101), the concurrently filed
`
`petition relies on the same grounds, the same prior art, expert testimony, and other
`
`evidence relied on by the Board in instituting review of claims 1-13 in IPR2016-
`
`00204. (Mylan IPR, IPR2016-01101, Paper No. 2).
`
`12.
`
`Institution and joinder for Grounds 3A and 3B should create no
`
`additional burden for the Board, Patent Owner, or the existing petitioners in
`
`IPR2016-00204 because these grounds are substantially the same as the instituted
`
`grounds. In addition, joinder is appropriate because it will efficiently resolve the
`
`validity of claims 1-13 of the '551 patent over the same prior art in a single IPR
`
`proceeding, without prejudicing the parties of the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204).
`
`13.
`
`Absent termination of Argentum as a party to the proceeding,
`
`Breckenridge anticipates participating in the proceeding in a limited capacity as an
`
`understudy. Moreover, joinder will have no impact on the trial schedule of
`
`IPR2016-00204 because that IPR is still in its early stages, and Breckenridge, in its
`
`limited role, is agreeable to the same schedule.
`
`14.
`
`To date, Mylan and Breckenridge represent two of several
`
`defendants involved in pending litigation regarding the '551 patent in the District
`
`of Delaware.2
`
`2 For a list of related litigations involving the '551 patent, see Breckenridge’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes review, section I.B., submitted concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings. The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`
`(c) JOINDER.--If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his
`
`or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who
`
`properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a
`
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such
`
`a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`
`section 314.
`
`Joinder of inter partes review proceedings is permitted up to one month after
`
`the institution decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers the impact
`
`of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17, at 3 (PTAB July 29, 2013). The Board should
`
`consider “the policy preference for joining a party that does not present new issues
`
`that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Furthermore, the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Board takes into account “the particular facts of each case, substantive and
`
`procedural issues, and other considerations,” while remaining “mindful that patent
`
`trial regulations, including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Id. at 3.
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified.” See Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17, at 4 (July 29, 2013).
`
`Joinder is justified when, as here, the second petition involves the same
`
`patent, the same references, the same expert declaration, and essentially identical
`
`patent scope as the instituted petition. “[T]he possibility of broadening the scope of
`
`issues” is not “an adequate reason for denying joinder” particularly where the
`
`joined petition “is based on the prior art already of record” and “the impact of
`
`joinder on the previous proceeding will be minimal from both a procedural and
`
`substantive view point.” Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Tech. & Biores., Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00556, Paper No. 19, at 5 (PTAB. July 9, 2014).
`
`Under this framework, joinder of the instant Breckenridge IPR with the
`
`Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) is appropriate as set forth herein, and to the extent
`
`the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101) Motion for Joinder is also granted.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Joinder with the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) is appropriate because the
`
`Petition is limited to the same grounds (Ground 3A and 3B) instituted in the
`
`Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) petition, and expressly does not advance for
`
`joinder purposes in this proceeding the grounds that were not instituted in
`
`IPR2016-00204 (or in the Actavis IPR (IPR2014-01126)). It also relies on the
`
`same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by Argentum. Indeed, the
`
`Petition is substantially identical with respect to the grounds raised in the
`
`Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) petition, and does not include any grounds not
`
`raised in that petition. Other than certain formalities, the present petition and
`
`evidence is substantially identical in content to the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-
`
`00204) petition. Certainly, no substantive differences exist between the present
`
`petition and the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) petition.
`
`Joinder is also appropriate because it will promote the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of patentability issues, including the determination of
`
`validity of the challenged claims of the '551 patent. For example, a final written
`
`decision on the validity of the '551 patent has the potential to minimize issues and
`
`potentially resolve current or future litigation related issues altogether with respect
`
`to the '551 patent.
`
`Moreover, granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner, Argentum or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Mylan, while Breckenridge could be prejudiced if joinder is denied. As mentioned
`
`above, the accompanying Petition does not raise any ground that is not raised in the
`
`Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) petition. Therefore, joinder should not
`
`significantly affect the timing in the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204). Also, there
`
`should be little to no additional cost to Patent Owner or Argentum given the
`
`overlap in the petitions. On the other hand, Breckenridge and the public may be
`
`potentially prejudiced if joinder is denied. For example, absent joinder, Patent
`
`Owner and Argentum might settle and request termination of the proceedings,
`
`leaving intact a patent with claims that the Board has found, with reasonable
`
`likelihood, are unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s Ability to complete the
`Review in a Timely Manner
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and associated rule 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c) provide that inter partes review proceedings should be completed and
`
`the Board’s final decision issued within one year of institution of the review. In
`
`this case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue the decision within this
`
`required one-year time frame because the grounds asserted in the instant petition
`
`are substantially identical to the grounds – the same prior art, expert testimony, and
`
`other evidence – relied on by the Board in instituting review of claims 1-13 in the
`
`Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204).
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`In addition, the grounds asserted in the instant petition are substantially
`
`identical to those in the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101).
`
`Because this Petition essentially copies grounds raised in the Argentum IPR
`
`(IPR2016-00204) petition, including the prior art analysis and expert testimony
`
`provided by Argentum, joinder will have no substantial effect on the parties, or
`
`prevent the Board from issuing a final written decision in a timely manner. The
`
`timing and content of Breckenridge’s petition and motion for joinder minimize any
`
`impact to the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) trial schedule. Moreover, as
`
`discussed above, Breckenridge anticipates participating in the proceeding in a
`
`limited capacity as an understudy, absent termination of Argentum as a party. For
`
`example, if the proceedings are joined and absent termination of Argentum, it is
`
`anticipated that no expert witnesses beyond those presented by Argentum and
`
`Patent Owner will present testimony.
`
`Accordingly, Breckenridge does not believe that any extension of the
`
`schedule will be required by virtue of joinder of Breckenridge as a petitioner to this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Breckenridge is amenable to procedures to simplify any further briefing and
`
`discovery, which will minimize any potential impact on the schedule or the volume
`
`of materials to be submitted to the Board. Breckenridge is willing to coordinate in
`
`an understudy role with Argentum regarding its respective IPR relating to the '551
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`patent and is also willing to adhere to the proposed timing and schedule
`
`contemplated in the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101, Paper No. 2). By coordinating
`
`between the parties, harmonizing the remaining dates between the petitions filed
`
`by Breckenridge, Argentum, and Mylan will be simplified.
`
`In addition to or as an alternative, the Board may adopt procedures similar to
`
`those adopted in Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385
`
`and Motorola Mobility LLC v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00256. In those cases, the
`
`Board ordered the petitioners to file consolidated filings, for which the first
`
`petitioner was responsible, and allowed the new petitioner to file seven additional
`
`pages with corresponding additional responsive pages allowed to the Patent
`
`Owner. IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 8; IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 8-9. This
`
`procedure would minimize any complication or delay caused by joinder, as the
`
`Board recognized in those cases. As in IPR2013-00385 and IPR2013-00256, the
`
`petitioners in this case can work together to manage the questioning at depositions
`
`and presentations at the hearing to avoid redundancy. IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at
`
`9; IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 9-10.
`
`Specifically, as long as Argentum remains a party, the Board may order
`
`petitioners to consolidate filings, and to limit Breckenridge to no additional filings
`
`in its understudy role. In addition, so long as Argentum remains a party,
`
`Breckenridge will not submit any separate filings, and in the unlikely event of a
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`disagreement with Argentum’s position or an issue arises that is unique to
`
`Breckenridge, it will request authorization from the Board to submit a short
`
`separate filing directed only to that issue. The Board may allow the Patent Owner a
`
`corresponding number of pages to respond to any separate filings. See Dell Inc.,
`
`supra, at 8-9.
`
`Further, no additional depositions will be needed and depositions will be
`
`completed within ordinary time limits. Additionally, Breckenridge will not seek to
`
`submit any new expert declarations from those entered by Argentum, except to the
`
`extent that Breckenridge may be precluded from relying on Argentum’s experts,
`
`e.g., if Argentum settles with patent owner and contractually binds its experts from
`
`continuing in the IPR with Breckenridge.
`
`Moreover, to the extent that Breckenridge does participate in the
`
`proceedings, Breckenridge will endeavor to coordinate with Argentum to
`
`consolidate authorized filings, manage questioning at depositions, ensure that
`
`briefing and discovery occur within the time normally allotted, and avoid
`
`redundancies. Breckenridge will maintain a secondary role, as an understudy, in
`
`the joined proceeding, and will assume a primary role only if Argentum ceases to
`
`participate in the IPR. As noted above, Breckenridge is willing to take an
`
`understudy role, in which it would not file any separate papers without consultation
`
`with Argentum and prior authorization from the Board.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`These procedures should simplify briefing and discovery and remove any
`
`“complication or delay” that might allegedly be caused by joinder, while providing
`
`the parties an opportunity to address all issues that may arise, and avoiding any
`
`undue burden on Patent Owner, Argentum, and the Board.
`
`Moreover, the Petitioner in the instant Breckenridge IPR and the Petitioner
`
`in the pending Mylan IPR can coordinate with the same expert(s) as the
`
`Petitioner’s reliance upon testimony from the same expert(s) and the conclusions
`
`and underlying reasoning is substantially identical. Because of this, there is no
`
`additional burden on the Patent Owner. All of these concessions offered by
`
`Breckenridge are consistent with precedent. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals
`
`Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., IPR2015-01871, Paper 13 (PTAB January
`
`25, 2016); and, Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385;
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00256.
`
`The Board has previously acknowledged that such concessions on the part of
`
`a party seeking to join are sufficient to minimize the impact on the original
`
`proceeding (see Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Senju
`
`Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., IPR2015-01871, Paper 13, at 2-7; and, SAP America Inc.
`
`v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13, at 4).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Because the current petition may be joined to the instituted petition without
`
`any additional discovery, without disturbing the current schedule, and with no
`
`discernible prejudice to Patent Owner joinder is appropriate.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder will promote Efficiency by consolidating Issues and
`preventing Inconsistencies
`
`Proceeding with a consolidated inter partes review as outlined above would
`
`avoid inefficiency and prevent inconsistencies and would result in a final written
`
`decision without any delay.
`
`Because the current petition offers no new substantive arguments, evidence,
`
`references, or testimony, does not disrupt the schedule for the instituted
`
`proceedings, and does not add additional discovery, joinder of this petition with the
`
`instituted petition is appropriate.
`
`D. Without Joinder, Breckenridge may be prejudiced
`
`Breckenridge would be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join and
`
`participate in the Argentum IPR (IPR2016-00204) in a similar manner as requested
`
`in the motion for joinder filed in the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101). Further, not
`
`only will Breckenridge’s inter partes review Petition be affected, but also the
`
`underlying litigation (UCB, Inc. et al. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. et al.,
`
`1:13-cv-01211-LPS (D. Del.)).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Argentum and will
`benefit the Interests of the Public
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Argentum, or for that
`
`matter Mylan. Breckenridge’s proposed grounds for instituting an IPR are based on
`
`the same grounds, and the same prior art, expert testimony, and other evidence
`
`relied on by the Board in instituting review of claims 1-13 in the Argentum IPR
`
`(IPR2016-00204) and by Mylan in the Mylan IPR (IPR2016-01101).
`
`To the extent that there exists a minimal burden, it is “strongly outweighed
`
`by the public interest in having consistency of outcome concerning similar sets of
`
`claimed subject matter and prior art.” Samsung, IPR2014-00557, Paper 10, at 18.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Breckenridge respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant the instant Petition for inter partes review of the '551 patent and join the inter
`
`partes review proceeding with Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Research
`
`Corporation Technologies, Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00204.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`June 21, 2016
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Matthew L. Fedowitz/
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq., Reg. No. 61,386
`Daniel R. Evans, Esq., Reg. No. 55,868
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`devans@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2500
`Main Facsimile: (703) 684-2501
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this “MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)” was served in its
`
`entirety this 21st day of June, 2016 to the Patent Owner by serving via overnight
`
`delivery the correspondence address of record for the '551 patent and also the
`
`Patent Owner:
`
`Covington & Burling, LLP
`Attn: Patent Docketing
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`
`Shaun A. Kirkpatrick,
`President, Biotechnologies
`Research Corporation Technologies
`5210 East Williams Circle, Suite 240
`Tucson, Arizona 85711-4410
`
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via email to the counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner and Patent Owner in Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v.
`
`Research Corporation Technologies, Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00204 as follows:
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC
`
`Matthew J. Dowd
`Andrews Kurth LLP
`1350 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`MatthewDowd@andrewskurth.com
`
`Justin W. Crotty, Ph.D.
`Andrews Kurth LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1350 I Street, NW, Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`JustinCrotty@andrewskurth.com
`
`
`Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Matthew L. Fedowitz/
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq., Reg. No. 61,386
`Daniel R. Evans, Esq., Reg. No. 55,868
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`devans@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2500
`Main Facsimile: (703) 684-2501
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Andrea G. Reister
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`areister@cov.com
`
`Jennifer L. Robbins
`Covington & Burling LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`jrobbins@cov.com
`
`Enrique D. Longton
`Covington & Burling LLP
`One CityCenter
`850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`rlongton@cov.com
`
`June 21, 2016