throbber
Paper _____
`
` Date filed: February 24, 2017
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. and Acrux Limited
`
`
`By: E. Anthony Figg, Lead Counsel
` Aydin H. Harston, Backup Counsel
` ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
` 607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`
` Washington, DC 20005
` Phone: 202-783-6040
` Fax: 202-783-6031
` Emails: efigg@rfem.com
`
`
`aharston@rfem.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. AND ACRUX LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. and
`VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2
`_______________
`
`
`PETITIONERS SUBMISSION OF TRANSCRIPT OF
`FEBRUARY 21, 2017 CONFERENCE CALL
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2 
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313–1450
`Submitted Electronically via the PTAB E2E System
`
`Your Honors:
`
`As discussed during Tuesday’s telephone conference, Petitioners Acrux
`
`DDS Pty LTD. & Acrux Limited hereby submit the attached transcript of the
`
`February 21, 2017 telephone conference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: February 24, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`/ E. Anthony Figg /
`E. Anthony Figg, Reg. No. 27,195
`Aydin H. Harston, Reg. No. 65,249
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th St., N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-783-6040; Fax: 202-783-6031
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case IPR2017-00190
`Patent 7,214,506 B2 
`
`I, hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing PETITIONERS
`
`SUBMISSION OF TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 21, 2017 CONFERENCE
`
`CALL, was served via electronic mail this 24th day of February, 2017, on the
`
`following counsel of record for Patent Owner Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.:
`
`John D. Livingstone, Esq.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`Phone: 404-653-6400
`Fax: 404-653-6444
`Emails: john.livingstone@finnegan.com
`KakenIPR@finnegan.com
`
`Naoki Yoshida
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Phone: 202-408-4000
`Fax: 202-408-4400
`Email: naoki.yoshida@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`/ Erik van Leeuwen /
`Erik van Leeuwen
`Litigation Operations Coordinator
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Page 1
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ACRUX DDS PTY LTD. & ACRUX LIMITED,
` Petitioners,
` v.
` KAKEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
` Patent Owner.
`
` Case IPR2017-00190
` U.S. Patent 7,214,506
`__________________________________________
`
` Teleconference
` New York, New York
` February 21, 2017
` 2:02 p.m.
`
` Transcript of Proceedings
` * * *
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`12
`
`34
`
`56
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`Presiding:
` The Honorable SUSAN MITCHELL,
` Administrative Patent Judge
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner:
` E. ANTHONY FIGG, ESQ.
` AYDIN H. HARSTON, ESQ.
` ERIN FOLEY, ESQ.
` CAITLIN WILMOT, ESQ.
` Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
` 607 14th Street, N.W., Suite 800
` Washington, DC 20005
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner:
` JOHN D. LIVINGSTONE, ESQ.
` Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
` & Dunner, LLP
` 271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
` Atlanta, Georgia 30363-6209
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` JUDGE SCOTT BOALICK
` JUDGE BEVERLY FRANKLIN
` * * *
`
`12
`
`3
`4
`
`56
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
` -Proceedings-
` HON. MITCHELL: I am Judge
` Mitchell, and I am accompanied on the
` phone by Judges Boalick and Franklin.
` And we are here for a conference call
` in IPR2017-00190. And let me first
` ask, and I think I heard this, is
` there a court reporter on the line?
` THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, good
` afternoon. Lisa Sansone from
` Veritext.
` HON. MITCHELL: Great. And can
` I ask who is going to be responsible
` for filing the transcript with the
` Board?
` MR. FIGG: Your Honor, this is
` Tony Figg for Petitioner. We will
` take care of that.
` HON. MITCHELL: Great. Thank
` you. All right. I know that
` Petitioner asked for this call and
` gave us a list of three issues, and I
` think a fourth issue in the
` correspondence that I saw, but before
` we get started, let me get a roll call
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 4
`
` -Proceedings-
` and know who is on the line and let me
` begin with petitioner.
` MR. FIGG: Yes, Your Honor, this
` is Tony Figg. I think on the record
` I'm listed as E. Anthony Figg for
` Petitioner. I will be speaking for
` Petitioner today, but also on the call
` for Petitioner are Lisa Philips, Aydin
` Harston, Erin Foley and Caitlin
` Wilmot.
` HON. MITCHELL: Great. Thank
` you so much.
` And for Patent Owner?
` MR. LIVINGSTONE: Good
` afternoon. This is John Livingstone
` for Patent Owner from Finnegan.
` HON. MITCHELL: Great. And do
` you have anybody else on the line with
` you for Patent Owner?
` MR. LIVINSTONE: No, ma'am. I
` am out numbered.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay, great.
` Let me just say I think Petitioner
` provided a list, and I'm just going to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 5
`
` -Proceedings-
` quickly go over what I think the call
` is about. And it looks like
` Petitioner is asking for permission to
` file a reply brief in response to the
` Patent Owner's response on several
` issues. One, Patent Owner's
` antedating discussions and then Patent
` Owner's discussion about claim
` construction and Patent Owner's naming
` of real parties in interest and then a
` possible stay to be sought by
` Petitioner of Patent Owner's reissue
` application.
` Do I have any other issues or do
` I have those correct or are there any
` other issues that we need to discuss
` today?
` MR. FIGG: Those are the issues.
` This is Tony Figg, Your Honor. Those
` are the issues, but we did receive a
` communication from Patent Owner this
` morning that they will be amending
` their mandatory notices to identify
` Valeant as the real party in interest.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
` -Proceedings-
` So I think that issue drops out in
` view of that representation by Patent
` Owners.
` MR. LIVINGSTONE: And just to be
` clear, this is John Livingstone, we
` are identifying Valeant as a real
` party in interest not the real party
` in interest. Kaken is the rightful
` owner of the patent at issue.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. Thank you
` for that. So then, Petitioner, you
` don't have any issue with respect to
` Patent Owner's naming of real parties
` in interest at this point?
` MR. FIGG: That is right. That
` was our concern was that the Valeant
` entity or entities be -- and Mr.
` Livingstone is more familiar with
` those entities than I am, but we
` understand they are the owner of the
` NBA and the licensee of this patent,
` so we thought they should be named as
` real parties in interest.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. All
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 7
`
` -Proceedings-
` right. Well, with that said, I guess
` number three is not an issue anymore.
` So let me hear from Petitioner first
` since you asked for the call and not
` getting into the merits of the
` remaining issues that you have which
` is why you think it's appropriate to
` file a reply addressing these issues
` at this time.
` MR. FIGG: Okay. Well, I will
` start with the first issue -- if that
` is the appropriate.
` HON. MITCHELL: Sure.
` MR. FIGG: -- which is on the
` antedating issue. We think that this
` is an issue for which a reply would be
` appropriate under Rule 42.108c. The
` Patent Owner has alleged in its
` response and its preliminary response
` that one of the references on which
` the Petitioner relies was published
` after their date of invention and,
` therefore, it's not prior art. They
` have made -- or at least they have
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 8
`
` -Proceedings-
` framed this as a threshold issue
` because they are asking that the
` review not be instituted on this
` basis.
` Now we of course, the document
` on its face is prior art. I don't
` think anyone disputes that. And we of
` course are seeing all of this for the
` first time because we had no way of
` knowing what evidence they had in
` their files. And I'm mindful of your
` request that we not get into the
` merits, Your Honor, it's just I would
` say we think that the evidence of
` prior invention is insufficient
` because it is being submitted for
` purposes of showing a prior reduction
` to practice and it is based entirely
` on a declaration by the inventor and a
` single document authored by the
` inventor with no independent
` corroboration.
` And so we think the law is
` pretty clear that a reduction to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 9
`
` -Proceedings-
` practice has to be corroborated by
` someone other than the inventor. And
` so obviously the Board may decide that
` this would be an issue you would
` decide after institution and would
` perhaps entertain a motion to exclude
` after institution. And if that is the
` way the Board prefers to handle it,
` then of course that is fine with us as
` well. But if it is an issue that
` would be considered as part of the
` decision on whether or not to
` institute then we feel that we should
` be entitled to respond and point out
` the deficiencies in the Patent Owner's
` evidence. So I can go onto the other
` issues or if you would like to deal
` with them one at a time, however you
` would like to provide.
` HON. MITCHELL: Let's deal with
` them one at a time. And thank you for
` that explanation. Let me hear from
` Mr. Livingstone about that issue.
` MR. LIVINGSTONE: Yes. So
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
` -Proceedings-
` there's a couple of things that I have
` to take issue with. I think Mr. Figg
` said that our reduction of practice
` evidence was based entirely on
` inventor testimony document. Actually
` the document speaks for itself. It is
` a contemporaneous document from almost
` 15 or 16 years ago now. It was not
` created for the purposes of this
` proceeding or for any other
` litigation. And it demonstrates on
` its face that there was a reduction of
` practice of invention.
` The federal circuit has said
` numerous times that corroboration is
` not necessary to establish what a
` physical exhibit before the Board
` includes, only inventor testimony
` requires corroboration. Here we
` provided inventor testimony merely to
` eliminate or provide context to the
` reduction of practice document that is
` an internal document. And even if it
` was the source of corroboration, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 11
`
` -Proceedings-
` document wouldn't in itself
` corroborate the testimony.
` More importantly for the
` requests that you are receiving today,
` we've seen no reason for additional
` briefing on this issue because the
` Board is perfectly capable to
` determine what the document shows and
` what it doesn't. And in fact that
` debate is in a number of federal
` circuit cases as well. And any reply
` that might be offered isn't required
` and wouldn't be helpful for the Board
` to perform its role of factfinder.
` HON. MITCHELL: And thank you
` for that.
` MR. FIGG: May I respond?
` HON. MITCHELL: Sure, go ahead,
` Mr. Figg.
` MR. FIGG: Thank you. So we
` think that the Patent Owner has cited
` law in its preliminary response that
` has to do with conception evidence,
` particularly the Mahurkar case is a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 12
`
` -Proceedings-
` conception case. I think even as a
` conception document there would be a
` problem here because you can't simply
` rely on a document that the inventor
` created to prove even a date of
` conception without at least having
` some evidence that that document
` existed before the critical date. All
` we have is their statement that it
` existed, and I think the rules with
` respect to reduction of practice are
` even stricter.
` The inventor has to provide
` independent corroborating evidence
` beyond his own statements and his own
` documents. And normally that is in
` the form of evidence of someone who
` witnessed the reduction of practice or
` someone who did testing, or I'm sure
` the Board is very familiar with
` evidence that is sufficient to show
` corroboration of reduction of
` practice, but simply saying I reduced
` it to practice in a declaration and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 13
`
` -Proceedings-
` then provide a document that the
` inventor says existed before the
` critical date, but there's no evidence
` to support that is not sufficient.
` And, you know, we can refer to
` cases like Hahn versus Wong and Reese
` versus Hurst and numerous other cases
` Singh versus Brake that had
` consistently held this. And this is
` what we -- you know if the Board wants
` to deal with this issue at this time,
` this is the kind of information we
` would like to address in a reply.
` HON. MITCHELL: Let me ask you
` this, Mr. Figg, do you believe that as
` the Petitioner you would need
` deposition testimony to fully vet
` these issues?
` MR. FIGG: I am sorry, Your
` Honor.
` HON. MITCHELL: No, go ahead.
` MR. FIGG: At this stage, no, I
` don't think we would because the issue
` is simply whether the evidence that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
` -Proceedings-
` the Patent Owner has presented to
` establish an earlier date of invention
` is sufficient, and we think as a
` matter of law it is not sufficient.
` So at this stage, we would not be
` asking for additional discovery on
` that issue.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay.
` MR. LIVINGSTONE: And I might
` add if it's truly a matter of law as
` Mr. Figg suggests, then there's no
` need for additional briefing. The
` Board is certainly able to function as
` a factfinder and then apply relevant
` law. We personally think that the law
` is different. That doesn't require
` additional briefing to determine
` whether this declaration -- not the
` declaration, I apologize, whether this
` internal report satisfies reduction of
` practice for purposes of antedating a
` piece of prior art.
` MR. FIGG: Well, Your Honor, the
` Patent Owner has put in its view of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 15
`
` -Proceedings-
` what the law is in its preliminary
` response. Obviously we have a
` disagreement about what the law is and
` how that law should apply to the facts
` that they have purported to establish
` through their declaration and their
` documentary exhibits. So, again, if
` the Board wants to deal with this
` issue at this time, we think the Board
` could benefit from a reply from the
` Petitioner on this point.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. Thank you
` both for that. I think we understand
` your respective positions on the first
` issue. Let's move on to the second
` issue where Petitioner would like to
` address Patent Owner's argument that
` Petitioner failed to provide claim
` constructions that they should have
` provided. So let me hear from
` Petitioner, Mr. Figg.
` MR. FIGG: Yes, thank you, Your
` Honor. So, again, the only reason we
` raised this issue at this time is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 16
`
` -Proceedings-
` the Patent Owner owner again has
` stated in its preliminary response
` that it regards this issue as a
` threshold issue that would justify
` denial of institution. And we think
` the Patent Owner has misstated and
` overstated the law and the applicable
` rules here. The Complaint seems to
` think that there is not a section in
` the petition with the section heading
` called claim construction but both
` parties have identified three claim
` terms that are at issue.
` As Your Honor may know by this
` point, the patent involved in this
` request is a patent directed to the
` treatment of fungal infections of the
` nails, a condition called
` onychomycosis. And two claimed terms
` that we think do have to be understood
` to understand the applicability of the
` prior art that we've cited are the
` term nail and the term onychomycosis,
` but as we pointed out in our petition,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 17
`
` -Proceedings-
` both of these terms are expressly
` defined in the patent at issue. And
` we discussed those expressed
` definitions in our petition and then
` used those definitions in our
` arguments for unpatentability.
` The third term that the Patent
` Owner has identified is
` therapeutically effective amount which
` also is defined in the specification.
` Our view on that was that that is a
` very common term used in method of
` treatment claims and it simply should
` be given its ordinary and customary
` meaning. So we saw no reason to
` discuss that one specifically in our
` petition. We simply applied it
` according to what we think its
` ordinary meaning is. If Patent Owner
` thought it had a different meaning,
` they could have said so.
` We think the Board here has made
` it clear in a number of other
` decisions that claim construction is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 18
`
` -Proceedings-
` not even required for institution
` because of the heavy presumption that
` a claimed term carries its ordinary
` and customary meaning. And I would
` refer to the Cox versus AT&T decision
` which is IPR2015-01187, and there's
` another case with the same name Cox
` versus AT&T, IPR2015-01227 which the
` Board has explained that as long as
` the challenged claim does contain a
` means plus function limitation it
` could be assessed in the prior --
` against the prior art whether there is
` a specific discussion of claimed
` construction in the Petitioner or not.
` So the Board has already
` concluded in other cases that having a
` separate section titled claim
` construction is not necessary for
` institution and indeed even claim
` construction itself is not necessary
` for institution. Again, since Patent
` Owner has identified this as a
` threshold issue, we asked for an
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 19
`
` -Proceedings-
` opportunity to provide a brief
` response but again, only the Board may
` decide it doesn't need that and that
` of course is fine with us as well, but
` we just want to have an opportunity to
` address it.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. Thank you
` very much for that statement, Mr.
` Figg. And let me go to Mr.
` Livingstone for a response.
` MR. LIVINSTONE: Thank you, Your
` Honor. In the e-mail that we received
` keying this issue up, there's a clause
` that says from Petitioner "despite
` these terms being discussed in the
` petition and expressly defined in the
` specification." At base if that
` statement is true then we see no
` reason for additional briefing. I
` think the reason Petitioner has
` requested this additional briefing is
` because they recognize a deficiency in
` their petition and they would like to
` try and correct it. We believe that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 20
`
` -Proceedings-
` that is not appropriate in a reply
` brief. They started this proceeding.
` They should have taken care of this in
` the beginning.
` And kind of at base what you see
` is Petitioner just noted, for
` instance, the term nail has an
` expressed definition, but when they
` construe nail in their paper they
` construe it to broadly include things
` like skin structures. This is their
` petition page 27, footnote 6. The
` term skin structures does not exist in
` patent and it does not exist in the
` file history. And there's nothing in
` the petition to explain how one of
` ordinary skill in the art would
` include or why they would include skin
` structures in the definition of nails
` and how they would interpret skin
` structures in the context of
` onychomycosis and how that would apply
` to the prior art teachings.
` And so I think we are sitting
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 21
`
` -Proceedings-
` here in a position where they have
` done some piecemeal claim
` construction, but it is at odds with
` what the specification describes. And
` without understanding exactly what
` those claim construction positions
` are, we believe that we can't
` understand how the challenge claims
` are to be construed and that is
` critical to understanding the scope of
` the claims and their positions.
` Again, I think at base you have
` a position where if what they say is
` in their petition is right there's
` absolutely no reason to have
` additional briefing and if what they
` say in their petition doesn't exist,
` they shouldn't be able to file a reply
` and clean it up because that would
` necessarily and substantively
` transform the proposed challenges.
` And if the Board believes that they do
` need additional briefing from the
` Petitioner to cure any claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
` -Proceedings-
` construction issues, we would also
` request the opportunity to respond to
` any newly proposed claim construction
` and any effects it has on any existing
` argument in the petition.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. I think
` we understand both of your respective
` positions on issue number two. Let's
` move on to --
` MR. FIGG: Could I clarify just
` one thing, Your Honor?
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay.
` MR. FIGG: We are not asking for
` a reply for purposes of putting in
` some different or new claim
` construction. What we are asking for
` is to respond to the argument that
` Patent Owner made in its preliminary
` response that there is no claim
` construction in our petition and,
` therefore, institution should be
` denied as a matter of law. We think
` that is just wrong on two counts.
` It's wrong that there's no claim
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 23
`
` -Proceedings-
` construction, and I think we heard a
` concession just a couple of minutes
` ago from Patent Owner that there is in
` fact claimed construction in the
` petition. And secondly, it is wrong
` because the Board has held that that
` is not a basis for denying
` institution.
` So that is what we would want to
` address in the reply. We do not have
` any intention of introducing new claim
` constructions. We think even the part
` that Mr. Livingstone just referred to
` about skin structures comes directly
` from the expressed definition that is
` in their patent.
` HON. MITCHELL: Thank you for
` that. Let's move on to the fourth
` issue about a request for a stay of
` the reissue on the Patent Owner. Mr.
` Figg.
` MR. FIGG: Yes. Well, we have a
` situation here now where different --
` I will use the term loosely tribunals
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 24
`
` -Proceedings-
` within the patent office are going to
` be looking at the same issues because
` the Patent Owner has filed a reissue
` application and has explicitly asked
` that prosecution on that reissue
` application be continued or pursued in
` parallel with the IPR proceedings.
` And at a minimum, the reissue examiner
` will have to be IPR petition and will
` be considering some of the same issues
` if not all of the same issues as the
` Board.
` We have not made a final
` decision on this, but it may very well
` be that Petitioner will file a protest
` if that prosecution proceeds. So you
` have a situation where a reissue
` examiner and the patent trial and
` appeal Board are going to be
` considering the same issues at the
` same time which is not only wasteful
` but has potential of leading to
` inconsistent results. There are --
` there is authority for the Board to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 25
`
` -Proceedings-
` stay the examination of a reissue
` application.
` I would refer the Board to
` Hewlett Packard versus MCM Portfolio
` which is IPR2013-00217, also Unified
` Patents versus Harry Heslop
` IPR2016-01464 and Rule 42.122 all say
` that the Board has this authority.
` And in fact I would specifically refer
` to the Board to Rule 42.3 which says
` that the Board has the authority to
` exercise exclusive jurisdiction within
` the office over an involved
` application and patent during the
` proceeding. So we think this is
` really just a matter of judicial and
` party resource economy.
` Obviously once the IPR is
` finally decided either it's the
` institution phase or the review stage,
` the reissue examiner will have the
` benefit of that and will be bound by
` the outcome of it and that then can
` guide how those proceedings go forward
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 26
`
` -Proceedings-
` from that point.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay, thank you
` so much. Let me get Mr. Livingstone's
` response for Patent Owner.
` MR. LIVINSTONE: Thank you, Your
` Honor. As an initial matter, we don't
` believe that there are the same issues
` pending in the reissue and this IPR
` petition but regardless I think to say
` it's inefficient for that proceeding
` to move forward without an institution
` decision is putting the cart before
` the horse. I don't think there's any
` duplication of efforts right now
` unless and until there is an
` institution decision.
` One of the cases that Mr. Figg
` has identified, the Hewlett Packard
` case did in fact stay a reissue
` application before an institution
` decision, but it was under the very
` different fact where Patent Owner did
` not oppose the request and actually
` joined it. That case also is very
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 27
`
` -Proceedings-
` different because there were the exact
` same issues and rejections pending on
` appeal for all claims. This will not
` be the case in the reissue that is
` pending here. I submit that if the
` Board institutes at that time moving
` first a stay and having us fight and
` brief that issue up makes a lot more
` sense then doing so now before the
` Board has made any decision on
` institution.
` HON. MITCHELL: Okay. Thank you
` very much. I think we understand the
` issues. Give me a brief moment to
` confer with the panel and we will be
` right back.
` MR. FIGG: Okay, thank you.
` (There was a pause in the
` proceeding.)
` HON. MITCHELL: This is Judge
` Mitchell. I have conferred with my
` colleagues on the panel Judge Boalick
` and Judge Franklin, and we appreciate
` the opportunity to hear both sides of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 28
`
` -Proceedings-
` the issues raised, but at this time,
` we do not believe it would be
` necessary for Petitioner to file a
` reply to address what amounts to
` issues of law in relation to the first
` issues addressed in dealing with the
` allegedly uncorroborated and
` declaration document the claim
` construction issues.
` As to the fourth issue that is
` still on the table the possible stay
` of the reissue filed by the Patent
` Owner, we believe that at this point
` it's premature until we institute, if
` we institute a trial on this case.
` And certainly Petitioner can raise it
` again if we do institute and go
` forward with this all and raise that
` issue again and certainly speak at
` that point to ask for briefing for a
` stay.
` And I think as we discussed, the
` third issue was taken care of which
` Patent Owner is filing an amended real
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`212-267-6868
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`www.veritext.com
`
`516-608-2400
`
`

`

`Page 29
`
` -Proceedings-
` party in interest statement.
` So I believe that addresses all
` of the issues. Have I addressed
`

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