`Filed: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Patent No. 8,338,470
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`
`v.
`
`HOSPIRA, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01055
`Patent 8,338,470
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Petition Is Untimely ....................................................................... 1
`
`There Is No Pending IPR To Which Petitioner Could Be Joined ......... 2
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`BOARD DECISIONS
`Apple, Inc. v. Benjamin Filmalter Grobler, IPR2014-00060, Paper 12
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2015-00261,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) ........................................................................ 3
`
`Google Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00978, Paper 11
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Aerohive Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01757, Paper
`11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017).................................................................................. 3
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, IPR2017-00655,
`Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2017) ..................................................................... 3, 4
`
`STATUTES
`
`21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(a)(vii)(IV) ............................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ................................................................................................. 1-3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board should not institute this inter partes review (IPR) because
`
`Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Petitioner”) is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Petitioner filed its Petition for inter partes review (“the Petition”) more than 1 year
`
`after it was served with a complaint in district court litigation. Although the
`
`Petition was accompanied by a motion for joinder with Amneal Pharmaceuticals
`
`LLC v. Hospira, Inc., Case No. IPR2016-01578 (“the Amneal IPR”), the Amneal
`
`IPR has since been terminated by the Board. As such, Petitioner’s motion for
`
`joinder is moot as there is no proceeding for it to join, and its Petition must
`
`therefore be denied as time-barred.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A. The Petition Is Untimely
`“An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the
`
`proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real
`
`party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Patent Owner sued Petitioner in
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of
`
`several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,338,470 (“the ’470 Patent), based on
`
`Petitioner’s filing of ANDA No. 208129 with a certification under 21 U.S.C. §
`
`355(j)(2)(a)(vii)(IV) and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). Petitioner admits that
`
`it was served with the complaint alleging infringement more than one year before it
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filed its Petition. See Paper 4 (Motion for Joinder), n.1 (“Fresenius Kabi … was
`
`served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’470 patent more than one
`
`year before filing the Petition…”). Accordingly, by Petitioner’s own admission, its
`
`Petition is barred under § 315(b).
`
`There Is No Pending IPR To Which Petitioner Could Be Joined
`
`B.
`Petitioner attempted to avoid the time bar of § 315(b) by accompanying its
`
`Petition with a request for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) of a then-pending IPR
`
`brought by Amneal. See Paper 4 (Motion for Joinder). However, that IPR was
`
`terminated by the Board on May 26, 2017. See IPR2016-01578, Paper
`
`19. Accordingly, there is no pending IPR to which this petition could be joined.
`
`There can be no joinder when there is no underlying proceeding to join.
`
`Aerohive Networks, Inc. v. Chrimar Sys., Inc., IPR2016-01757, Paper 11, at *3
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017) (“There is no longer any pending proceeding in the ’569
`
`IPR to join that would allow Petitioner to avoid the time bar of section 315(b). As a
`
`result, the Petition is barred under section 315(b).”). See also Apple, Inc. v.
`
`Benjamin Filmalter Grobler, IPR2014-00060, Paper 12, at *3 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29,
`
`2013) (“[B]ecause the Board entered a judgment terminating [the underlying IPR],
`
`there is no proceeding for Apple to join.”); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Am. Vehicular
`
`Scis. LLC, IPR2015-00261, Paper 10, at *5 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015) (“Because
`
`IPR2014-00646 is no longer pending, it cannot serve as a proceeding to which
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`another proceeding may be joined.”); Google Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00978, Paper 11, at *6 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014) (“Given that IPR2014-
`
`00062 is no longer pending, it cannot serve as a proceeding to which another
`
`proceeding may be joined. As such, the termination of IPR2014-00062 renders
`
`Google’s Motion for Joinder moot.”).
`
`Because there is no longer a proceeding to which Petitioner’s case can be
`
`joined, Petitioner is time-barred under § 315(b) and the IPR therefore cannot be
`
`instituted.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should deny institution of this IPR as
`
`statutorily time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`
`Date: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Sandra S. Lee /
`Sandra S. Lee
`Registration No. 51,932
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`Petition, exclusive of the exempted portions as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a),
`
`contains no more than 610 words and therefore complies with the type-volume
`
`limitations of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b).
`
`
`Date: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Sandra S. Lee / .
`Sandra S. Lee
`Registration No. 51,932
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Patent No. 8,338,470
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Filed: June 9, 2017
`
`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 “PATENT OWNER’S
`
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107” via the P.T.A.B.’s
`
`E2E system and sent via email as detailed below.
`
`June 9, 2017
`
`Date of service:
`
`Documents served: PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`Person Served:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Imron T. Aly (ialy@schiffhardin.com)
`Jason Harp (jharp@schiffhardin.com)
`Schiff Hardin LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Phone: (312) 258-5500
`Fax: (312) 258-5600
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` Sandra S. Lee / .
`Sandra S. Lee
`Registration No. 51,932
`
` /
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 9, 2017
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`