Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 44
` Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICAL LLC, AND
`WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-014791
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`_____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC was joined as a party to this proceeding via
`a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01063; West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
`International Limited was joined as a party via a Motion for Joinder in
`IPR2017-01078.
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 44
` Entered: October 24, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICAL LLC, AND
`WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS
`INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-014791
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`_____________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER L. CRUMBLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Trial Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`1 Argentum Pharmaceutical LLC was joined as a party to this proceeding via
`a Motion for Joinder in IPR2017-01063; West-Ward Pharmaceuticals
`International Limited was joined as a party via a Motion for Joinder in
`IPR2017-01078.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner2 Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Patent Owner Novartis AG,
`
`each requested oral argument in this inter partes review trial pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 31, 36. Upon consideration, these requests are
`
`granted. Oral argument shall commence at 9:00 AM Eastern Time on
`
`November 1, 2017, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Each party will have forty-five minutes of total
`
`time to present arguments.
`
`The Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioners3 will open the
`
`hearing by presenting argument regarding the pending grounds of
`
`unpatentability. Patent Owner will then have the opportunity to respond to
`
`Petitioners’ arguments. If desired, Petitioners may reserve rebuttal time to
`
`respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner.
`
`The Board will provide a court reporter, and the transcript shall
`
`constitute the official record of the hearing. No Motions to Seal have been
`
`filed in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the parties
`
`are capable of presenting their arguments without discussing confidential
`
`information, and exercises its discretion to make the oral hearing publicly
`
`
`
`2 Par Pharmaceutical filed its Request for Oral Argument before Argentum
`Pharmaceutical and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International were joined
`as parties to this proceeding. The joined Petitioners, however, proposed to
`take an “understudy” role in the joined proceeding (see IPR2017-01063,
`Paper 3, 5; IPR2017-01078, Paper 3, 8), and therefore we construe Par’s
`request to be on behalf of all Petitioners.
`
`3 In our Decision granting joinder, we ordered Par, Argentum, and West-
`Ward to collectively designate attorneys to present at the oral hearing as a
`consolidated presentation. Paper 33, 8.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`
`accessible. The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance
`
`that will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits shall be
`
`served on opposing counsel at least five business days before the hearing,
`
`and filed with the Board no later than the time of the oral argument. The
`
`parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The
`
`Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), for guidance regarding the appropriate
`
`content of demonstrative exhibits.
`
`The Board expects that the parties will meet and confer in good faith
`
`to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but if such objections
`
`cannot be resolved the parties may file any objections to demonstratives with
`
`the Board at least two business days before the hearing. The objections
`
`should identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative
`
`exhibits are subject to objection, include a copy of the objected-to portions,
`
`and include a one-sentence statement of the basis for each objection. No
`
`argument or further explanation is permitted. The Board will consider any
`
`objections and schedule a conference call if deemed necessary. Otherwise,
`
`the Board will reserve ruling on the objections. Any objection to
`
`demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered
`
`waived.
`
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present in person
`
`at the oral hearing. Any counsel of record, however, may present the party’s
`
`argument. If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be
`
`attending the oral argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`
`conference with the Board no later than two business days prior to the oral
`
`hearing to discuss the matter.
`
`Any special requests for audio visual equipment should be directed to
`
`Trials@uspto.gov.
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`
`ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the
`
`procedures outlined above, shall commence at 9:00 AM Eastern Time on
`
`November 1, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01479
`Patent 9,006,224 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Daniel Brown
`Daniel.brown@lw.com
`
`Jon Strang
`Jonathan.strang@lw.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Nicholas Kallas
`nkallas@fchs.com
`
`Raymond Mandra
`rmandra@fchs.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
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
