throbber
By: Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq.
`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

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