Paper No.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`___________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00181
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________________________________
`
`BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ENZO LIFE SCIENCES, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`___________________________________________
`
`Case IPR2017-00181
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,064,197
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 AND § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND BACKGROUND ................. 2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Joinder Is Timely ............................................ 4
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate ........................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Asserts Substantively Identical Grounds of
`Unpatentability ............................................................................ 6
`
`Petitioner Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery .......... 7
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Raises No New Grounds of Unpatentability .............. 8
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Will Have No Impact on Trial Schedule .................... 9
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified .......................................... 9
`
`G. No Prejudice to Enzo if Proceedings Are Joined ................................ 10
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER .................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00062, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2016) ........................................ 6, 7
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013) ............................................. 5
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00822 (P.T.A.B.) ..........................................................................passim
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013) ................................ 1, 4
`
`Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Novartis AG,
`IPR2014-00550, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2015) ......................................... 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013) ........................................... 5
`
`Qualcomm, Inc. v. Bandspeed, Inc.,
`IPR2015-01580, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2015) ........................................... 5
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016) ................................. 4, 5, 10
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ............................................................................................. 1, 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................... 1, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................. ..1,4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) ............................................................................................ 5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) .......................................................................................... ..5, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) .................................................................................... 1, 4, 5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) .................................................................................. ..1,4, 5,6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Company (“Petitioner,” “BD”) submits the present
`
`Motion for Joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), which
`
`authorizes the filing of a “motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b). Petitioner moves to join its concurrently filed petition for inter partes
`
`review (“Petitioner’s IPR”) of U.S. Patent 7,064,197 (“the ’197 patent”) with
`
`Hologic Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., IPR2016-00822 (“the Hologic 822 IPR”),
`
`which challenges the same claims of the same patent. The Board instituted the
`
`Hologic 822 IPR on October 4, 2016. See IPR2016-00822, Paper 8, at 1.
`
`Petitioner’s IPR and this motion for joinder are timely because they are filed within
`
`one month of the decision instituting the Hologic 822 IPR.
`
`Petitioner’s IPR should be joined because it is identical to the Hologic 822
`
`IPR in all substantive respects: Petitioner’s IPR asserts the same grounds on the
`
`same claims as those in the Hologic 822 IPR and includes identical exhibits to those
`
`in the Hologic 822 IPR. Discovery will not be impacted by joinder of Petitioner’s
`
`IPR because Petitioner relies upon the same expert declarant as the Hologic 822 IPR
`
`and is not advancing any new evidence. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00004, Paper No. 15, at 4 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013). Petitioner is also
`
`willing to adopt the same schedule as set for the Hologic 822 IPR. See
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00822, Paper 9, at 6-7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4. 2016). Hologic does not oppose
`
`this Motion. Petitioner agrees that so long as Hologic is a party, Hologic will
`
`maintain the lead role in the proceedings. Because these factors support joining
`
`these proceedings, Petitioner requests that the Board grant this Motion for Joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`The Petitioner’s IPR and the Hologic 822 IPR proceedings relate to the
`
`’197 patent, owned by Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“Enzo”).
`
`2.
`
`In 2012, Enzo asserted the ’197 patent against numerous defendants,
`
`including Petitioner, in eight separate actions; Enzo filed a ninth action in 2015.
`
`3.
`
`The cases involving the ’197 patent that are still pending are Enzo Life
`
`Sciences, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-271 (D. Del.); Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v.
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Company et al., No. 1:12-cv-275 (D. Del.); and Enzo Life
`
`Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems Inc. et al., No. 1:12-cv-106 (D. Del.).
`
`4.
`
`Enzo’s complaint against Petitioner in Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v.
`
`Becton, Dickinson and Company et al., No. 1:12-cv-275 (D. Del.) was first served
`
`on March 6, 2012.
`
`5.
`
`On March 30, 2016, Hologic, Inc. (“Hologic”) filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review (IPR2016-00822) requesting cancellation of claims 17, 19, 25, 105,
`
`106, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120, 128, 129, 130, 131, 150, 151,152, 154, 178, 180, 185,
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`186, 187, and 189 of the ’197 patent. Hologic, Inc. v. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-00822, Paper 1, at 1 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016).
`
`6.
`
`On October 4, 2016, the Board instituted the Hologic 822 IPR on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims Instituted
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`17, 19, 25, 105, 106, 114, 116, 119, 128, 129, 150, 152, 178, 180, 186,
`
`and 187 as anticipated by Fish (Ex. 1006)
`
`130, 131, 151, and 154 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006)
`
`120 and 189 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006), Metzgar (Ex. 1009), and
`
`Sato (Ex. 1034)
`
`113 and 185 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006) and Gilham (Ex. 1019)
`
`17, 19, 25, 105, 106, 114, 119, 120, 128, 129, 131, 150–152, 178, 180,
`
`186, and 189 as obvious over VPK (Ex. 1008) and Metzgar (Ex. 1009)
`
`113, 116, 130, 154, 185, and 187 as obvious over Noyes (Ex. 1007),
`
`VPK (Ex. 1008), Metzgar (Ex. 1009), and Ramachandran (Ex. 1028)
`
`See IPR2016-00822, Paper 8 (Oct. 4, 2016).
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board exercise its discretion to grant
`
`joinder of Petitioner’s IPR to the Hologic 822 IPR proceedings pursuant to 35
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Joinder with the
`
`Hologic 822 IPR is justified because each factor identified by the Board as
`
`supporting joinder is met. The Board has explained that a “motion for joinder
`
`should (1) set forth 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.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12, at 4 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016) (citing
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, at 4 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 24,
`
`2013)). In further support of this motion, Petitioner proposes consolidated filings
`
`and other procedural accommodations designed to streamline the proceedings.
`
`Petitioner’s Request for Joinder Is Timely
`
`B.
`Petitioner has timely filed this motion for joinder and Petitioner’s IPR
`
`because they are being filed no later than one month after institution of the Hologic
`
`822 IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As the statute provides and the
`
`Board has explained, the one-year filing window specified in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) “shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (the “time period set forth in §42.101(b)
`
`shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”); see
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12, at 4 (P.T.A.B.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Aug. 24, 2016); Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2016-00062, Paper 14, at 3-4
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2016) (“35 U.S.C. § 315(b) states that ‘[t]he time limit . . . shall
`
`not apply to a request for joinder.’ Hence, if a party filing a time-barred petition
`
`requests joinder, the one-year time bar ‘shall not apply.’”); Qualcomm, Inc. v.
`
`Bandspeed, Inc., IPR2015-01580, Paper 23, at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2015) (“35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) further establishes a one-year bar from the date of service of a
`
`complaint alleging infringement for requesting inter partes review, but specifies that
`
`the bar does not apply to a request for joinder under § 315(c).”); Dell Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 4-5 (P.T.A.B. Jul.
`
`29, 2013) (“While Dell filed its Petition more than one year after being served with a
`
`complaint, the second sentence of Section 315(b) provides that the one-year bar
`
`‘shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).’ The one-year bar,
`
`therefore, does not apply to Dell because it filed a motion for joinder with its
`
`Petition.”); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 4-5
`
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 24, 2013) (same).
`
`The Board’s rules supply further confirmation that joinder is permissible here:
`
`[A] petition requesting inter partes review may not be
`
`“filed more than one year after the date on which the
`
`petitioner, the petitioner’s real party-in-interest, or a privy
`
`of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`infringement of the patent,” but the one-year time limit
`
`“shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a
`
`request for joinder.”
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2016-00062, Paper 14, at 4 (quoting 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.101(b), 42.122(b)).
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`C.
`Joinder is appropriate in this case because it is the most expedient way to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the validity of the challenged
`
`claims in one proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Intentionally, Petitioner’s IPR is substantively identical to the corresponding
`
`Hologic 822 IPR, in an effort to avoid multiplication of issues before the Board.
`
`Given the duplicative nature of these petitions, joinder of the related proceedings is
`
`appropriate. As discussed below, Petitioner agrees to consolidated filings and
`
`discovery, and procedural concessions, which Hologic does not oppose and which
`
`do not prejudice Enzo.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Asserts Substantively Identical Grounds of
`Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner’s IPR is identical to the Hologic 822 IPR in all substantive respects.
`
`Petitioner’s IPR proposes institution of trial on the same grounds as those instituted
`
`by the Board in the Hologic 822 IPR, relying on the same exhibits, expert declarant
`
`(Dr. Norman Nelson), and expert testimony as in the Hologic 822 IPR.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner proposes no new grounds of unpatentability and relies on
`
`the same evidence, which weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`Petitioner Agrees to Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`2.
`Because the grounds of unpatentability in the Petitioner’s IPR and the
`
`Hologic 822 IPR are the same, the case is amenable to consolidated filings.
`
`Petitioner agrees to consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the proceeding
`
`(e.g., Reply to the Patent Owner’s Response, Opposition to Motion to Amend,
`
`Motion for Observation on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply Witness,
`
`Motion to Exclude Evidence, Opposition to Motion to Exclude Evidence and
`
`Reply). Petitioner agrees not to advance any arguments separate from those
`
`advanced by Hologic in the consolidated filings. Petitioner also agrees that, so long
`
`as Hologic is a party, Hologic will maintain the lead role in the proceedings.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Petitioner and Hologic
`
`are using the same expert declarant, Dr. Norman Nelson, who has submitted
`
`substantially the same declaration in the two proceedings. So long as Hologic is still
`
`a party to the proceedings, Hologic will designate an attorney to conduct the
`
`cross-examination of any given witness produced by Enzo and the redirect of any
`
`given witness produced by Petitioner or Hologic within the time frame normally
`
`allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner will not request any separate
`
`cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Raises No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`D.
`Petitioner’s IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability from those of the
`
`Hologic 822 IPR because the petitions are essentially identical. Petitioner only
`
`requests institution of the same grounds on the same claims already instituted in the
`
`Hologic 822 IPR, citing the same evidence. The claims instituted in the Hologic 822
`
`IPR are as follows:
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims Instituted
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`17, 19, 25, 105, 106, 114, 116, 119, 128, 129, 150, 152, 178, 180, 186,
`
`and 187 as anticipated by Fish (Ex. 1006)
`
`130, 131, 151, and 154 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006)
`
`120 and 189 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006), Metzgar (Ex. 1009), and
`
`Sato (Ex. 1034)
`
`113 and 185 as obvious over Fish (Ex. 1006) and Gilham (Ex. 1019)
`
`17, 19, 25, 105, 106, 114, 119, 120, 128, 129, 131, 150–152, 178, 180,
`
`186, and 189 as obvious over VPK (Ex. 1008) and Metzgar (Ex. 1009)
`
`113, 116, 130, 154, 185, and 187 as obvious over Noyes (Ex. 1007),
`
`VPK (Ex. 1008), Metzgar (Ex. 1009), and Ramachandran (Ex. 1028)
`
`See IPR2016-00822, Paper 8 (Oct. 4, 2016).
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s IPR Will Have No Impact on Trial Schedule
`
`E.
`Granting this motion for joinder will have no impact on the trial schedule for
`
`the Hologic 822 IPR because Petitioner does not raise any issues that are not already
`
`before the Board. Hologic does not oppose Petitioner’s joinder and does not need to
`
`specifically address any issues raised by Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner is willing
`
`to adhere to the schedule already established for the Hologic 822 IPR. See
`
`IPR2016-00822, Paper 9, at 6-7 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4. 2016).
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`
`F.
`Briefing and discovery will be simplified because Petitioner’s consolidated
`
`briefing and use of the same expert declarant and essentially identical petition and
`
`declaration eliminate the need for Enzo to respond to substantially identical
`
`positions twice. In the interest of efficiency, Petitioner has agreed that Hologic will
`
`maintain the lead role in the joined proceedings so long as it remains a party to the
`
`proceedings. As noted above, so long as Hologic is a party to the proceeding,
`
`Petitioner will not request any separate cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`Petitioner agrees that Hologic will designate an attorney to conduct the
`
`cross-examination of any given witness produced by Enzo and the redirect of any
`
`given witness produced by Petitioner or Hologic within the time frame normally
`
`allotted by the rules for one party.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`G. No Prejudice to Enzo if Proceedings Are Joined
`Joinder in this case will reduce the risk of prejudice to Petitioner without
`
`prejudice to Enzo. First, Petitioner has agreed that Hologic will maintain the lead
`
`role in joined inter partes review, which will streamline the proceedings overall and
`
`not add any burden to Enzo. See IPR2016-00962, Paper 12, at 7 (“The instant
`
`Petition, however, adds no additional substantive issues to the earlier proceeding,
`
`[Petitioner] has agreed to take on only an understudy role in the [original] IPR, thus,
`
`no change to the schedule is necessary….” (emphasis added)) (citing Mylan Pharms.
`
`Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper 38, at 5 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2015)).
`
`Second, Joinder of Petitioner’s IPR to the Hologic 822 IPR would allow
`
`Petitioner to maintain its ongoing interests in the Board’s review of the ’197 patent
`
`in the case of a settlement by Hologic, without any prejudice to Enzo because the
`
`same arguments and expert declarant are being used. Although Hologic is currently
`
`challenging claims of the ’197 patent by way of the Hologic 822 IPR, Hologic may
`
`withdraw from the proceeding through settlement with Enzo, which would permit
`
`the Board thereafter to terminate the proceeding if “no petitioner remains in the inter
`
`partes review.” See 35 U.S.C. § 317. Joinder is therefore appropriate because
`
`allowing Petitioner to join the Hologic 822 IPR would not substantively affect the
`
`complexity or timing of the proceeding without prejudice to either Enzo or
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`Petitioner proposes a joinder order for consideration by the Board as follows,
`
`which Hologic does not oppose:
`
`• Petitioner’s IPR will be instituted and will be joined with the Hologic 822 IPR
`
`on the same grounds for the same claims as those for which the Hologic 822
`
`IPR has been instituted.
`
`• The scheduling order for the Hologic 822 IPR will apply to the joined
`
`proceeding, and Hologic will maintain the lead role in the proceedings so long
`
`as it is a party.
`
`• Throughout the proceeding, Hologic and Petitioner will file papers as
`
`consolidated filings, except for motions that do not involve the other party, in
`
`accordance with the Board’s established rules regarding page limits. So long
`
`as they both continue to participate in the merged proceeding, Hologic and
`
`Petitioner will identify each such filing as a Consolidated Filing and will be
`
`responsible for completing all consolidated filings. Petitioner agrees not to
`
`advance any arguments separate from those advanced by Petitioner and
`
`Hologic in the consolidated filings so long as Hologic remains a party.
`
`• In consultation with Petitioner, Hologic will designate an attorney to conduct
`
`the cross examination of any given witness produced by Enzo and the redirect
`
`of any given witness produced by Hologic or Petitioner within the time frame
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`normally allotted by the rules for one party. Petitioner will not receive any
`
`separate cross-examination or redirect time.
`
`• Enzo will conduct any cross examination of any given witness jointly
`
`produced by Hologic or Petitioner and the redirect of any given witness
`
`produced by Enzo within the time frame normally allotted by the rules for one
`
`cross-examination or redirect examination.
`
`• Hologic and Petitioner will coordinate their presentation at the oral hearing.
`
`• Petitioner will not assume a lead counsel role as long as Hologic remains in
`
`the proceedings.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`joinder of the Petitioner’s IPR and Hologic 822 IPR proceedings.
`
`Date: November 3, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Jamie T. Wisz/
`
`
`
`Jamie T. Wisz (Reg. No. 58,429)
`Heather Petruzzi (Reg. No. 71,270)
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`TEL: 1-202-663-6286
`FAX: 1-202-663-6363
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(a), this is to certify that I caused
`
`to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing “PETITIONER’S MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND
`
`42.122(b)” as detailed below:
`
`November 3, 2016
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§
`42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Via Federal Express to the following addresses:
`
`Enzo Biochem Inc.
`Donna M. Tirella
`527 Madison Avenue, 9th floor
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Kevin K. McNish (Reg. No. 65,047)
`kmcnish@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: 212-351-3400
`Facsimile: 212-351-3401
`
`
`
`Date of service
`
`Documents served
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Manner of service
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies sent via email to the following addresses:
`
`M. Paul Barker (Reg. No. 32,013)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
`L.L.P.
`Stanford Research Park
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`Telephone: 650.849.6620
`Facsimile: 650.849.6666
`paul.barker@finnegan.com
`hologicipr@finnegan.com
`
`Thomas L. Irving (Reg. No. 28,619)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
`L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202.408.4082
`Facsimile: 202.408.4400
`tom.irving@finnegan.com
`
`Arpita Bhattacharyya (Reg. No. 63,681)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,
`L.L.P.
`Two Seaport Lane, 6th Floor
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`Telephone: 617.646.1675
`Facsimile: 617.646.1600
`arpita.bhattacharyya@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`/Jamie T. Wisz/
`Jamie T. Wisz
`Registration No. 58,429
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
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
