`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LUPIN LTD. AND LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01160
`Patent 9,326,966
`
`__________________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. RELATED LITIGATION AND INTER PARTES REVIEWS ...................... 3
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Board Should Terminate this IPR in its Entirety ........................... 6
`B. Written Settlement Agreement .............................................................. 7
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`V.
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apex v. Resmed,
`IPR2013-00512, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014) ............................................ 7
`Plaid Techs., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00273, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017) ............................................... 6
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Tex. LLC,
`IPR2016-00421, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) ............................................. 6
`Volution v. Versata Software,
`CBM2013-00018, Paper 52 (P.T.A.B. June 17, 2014) .......................................... 7
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 6
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) .................................................................................................1, 5
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`Other Authorities
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 5
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 ...................................................................................................5, 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74 ....................................................................................................... 6
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) .......................................................................................... 1, 7, 8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`I.
`
`(collectively “Lupin” or “Petitioner”) and Horizon Therapeutics, LLC (“Horizon”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) jointly move that the Board terminate this inter partes review
`
`(IPR) proceeding, which is directed at U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966 (“the ’966
`
`patent”), in its entirety as a result of settlement between Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner. See Ex. 2054 (Confidential).
`
`The parties are concurrently filing a separate request that the settlement
`
`agreement (Ex. 2054) being filed herewith be treated as business confidential
`
`information and be kept separate from the files of the involved patent, pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Petitioner filed this IPR petition on March 27, 2017. On July 6, 2017, Patent
`
`Owner filed its Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107. The Board issued
`
`a decision instituting inter partes review on September 28, 2017. On February 9,
`
`2018, Patent Owner filed its Patent Owner Response. On June 14, 2018, per the
`
`parties’ respective requests, the Board ordered a consolidated Oral Argument with
`
`IPR2017-01159, directed at related U.S. Patent 9,254,278 (“the ’278 patent”), for
`
`July 9, 2018. See Paper No. 33.
`
`1
`
`
`
`On June 27, 2018, Petitioner and Patent Owner entered into a settlement
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`agreement. See Ex. 2054 (Confidential). Under the terms of the settlement
`
`agreement, the parties agreed to jointly seek termination of IPR2017-01160 as
`
`well as related inter partes review IPR2017-01159, and the parties agreed to
`
`dismiss related district court litigation, Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.
`
`and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07624-RBK-JS (D.N.J.
`
`filed Oct. 19, 2015), and Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-4438-RBK-JS (D.N.J. filed Jul.
`
`21, 2016). Thus, this settlement agreement resolves all currently pending Patent
`
`Office and District Court proceedings between the parties involving the ’966 patent
`
`and related ’278 patent.
`
`On July 5, 2018, per the request of the parties, the Board cancelled the oral
`
`argument scheduled for July 9, 2018, and authorized the parties to file the instant
`
`joint motion to terminate the proceedings by no later than July 13, 2018. See Paper
`
`No. 35. Accordingly, no oral argument has been held and the Board has yet to
`
`issue a final decision in this matter.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`III. RELATED LITIGATION AND INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`The following currently pending district court litigation and inter partes
`
`review proceedings involve the ’966 patent and/or are related to the instant IPR:
`
`(a)
`
`IPR2017-01159, petition filed on the same date as this petition, by the
`
`present Petitioner, directed at the ’278 patent, which is the parent of
`
`the patent at issue in this case.
`
`(b)
`
`IPR2016-00829, petition filed April 1, 2016, by the present Petitioner,
`
`directed at U.S. Patent 9,095,559 (“the ’559 patent”), which is the
`
`grandparent of the patent at issue in this case. The Board instituted
`
`trial in an institution decision dated September 30, 2016, and issued a
`
`final written decision on September 26, 2017.
`
`(c) Horizon Therapeutics, LLC v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceutical,
`
`Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1225 to the Federal Circuit from the Board’s
`
`Final Written Decision in IPR No. IPR2016-00829 concerning the
`
`’559 patent.
`
`(d)
`
`IPR2017-01767, directed at the ’278 patent, which is the parent of the
`
`at issue in this case. The petition was filed on July 13, 2017, by Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc. and the Board issued a decision instituting trial
`
`on January 30, 2018.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01768, directed at the ’559 patent, which is the grandparent
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`(e)
`
`of the patent at issue in this case. The petition was filed on July 13,
`
`2017, by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and the Board issued a decision
`
`instituting trial on January 30, 2018.
`
`(f)
`
`IPR2017-01769, directed at the ’966 patent, which is the patent at
`
`issue in this case. The petition was filed on July 13, 2017, by Par
`
`Pharmaceutical, Inc. and the Board issued a decision instituting trial
`
`on January 30, 2018.
`
`(g) Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-07624-RBK-JS (D.N.J. filed Oct. 19,
`
`2015). The Complaint asserts infringement of the ’559 patent. On
`
`November 16, 2016, the district court stayed that case pending
`
`resolution of IPR2016-00829. On October 10, 2017, the district court
`
`continued the stay pending the resolution of Horizon’s Appeal No.
`
`2018-1225.
`
`(h) Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Civil Action
`
`No. 1:16-cv-3910-RBK-JS (D.N.J. filed June 30, 2016). The
`
`Complaint asserts infringement of the ’559, ’278 and ’966 patents.
`
`On November 18, 2016, the district court stayed that case pending
`
`resolution of IPR2016-00829. On October 5, 2017, the district court
`
`4
`
`
`
`continued the stay pending the resolution of Horizon’s Appeal No.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`2018-1225.
`
`(i) Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-4438-RBK-JS (D.N.J. filed Jul. 21,
`
`2016). The Complaint asserts infringement of the ’278 and ’966
`
`patents. On November 16, 2016, the district court stayed that case
`
`pending resolution of IPR2016-00829. On October 10, 2017, the
`
`district court continued the stay pending the resolution of IPR2017-
`
`01159 and IPR2017-01160.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Section 317(a) provides: “An inter partes review instituted under this chapter
`
`shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the
`
`petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). It
`
`further provides: “If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office
`
`may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section
`
`318(a).” Id.
`
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 provides that “[t]he Board may terminate a trial
`
`without rendering a final written decision, where appropriate, including where the
`
`trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a joint request under 35
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S.C. 317(a).” The Trial Practice Guide additionally counsels that “[t]here are
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to proceeding”
`
`and that the Board “expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a
`
`settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A. The Board Should Terminate this IPR in its Entirety
`As noted in the Statement of Facts, the Board has cancelled oral argument
`
`and has yet to render a final decision in this matter, and the parties have jointly
`
`requested the Board terminate the proceeding in light of their settlement
`
`agreement. Ex. 2054 (Confidential). Thus, the Board should terminate the
`
`proceeding with respect to Lupin, the sole Petitioner in this proceeding. Moreover,
`
`because no petitioner remains after termination with respect to Lupin, the Board
`
`should exercise its discretion and terminate review in its entirety under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`317 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74.
`
`The Board has terminated entire IPR proceedings based on joint motions to
`
`terminate after the merits had been fully briefed and the matter was ready for oral
`
`argument. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Tex. LLC, IPR2016-00421, Paper
`
`28, at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) (granting motion to terminate even after all
`
`substantive papers were filed, “particularly in light of the fact that a final written
`
`6
`
`
`
`decision is not due until more than four months from now”); Plaid Techs., Inc. v.
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`Yodlee, Inc., IPR2016-00273, Paper 29, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017) (granting
`
`motion to terminate because “[t]he parties’ joint motions to terminate were filed
`
`prior to the oral hearings in these cases”); Apex Med. Corp. v. Resmed Ltd.,
`
`IPR2013-00512, Paper 39, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014) (granting joint motion to
`
`terminate after the parties had fully briefed the matter because “the record is not
`
`yet closed, and the Board has not yet decided the merits of this proceeding.”);
`
`Volution Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00018, Paper 52, at 2-3
`
`(P.T.A.B. June 17, 2014) (granting motion to terminate after oral argument).
`
`Here, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in advance of the
`
`scheduled date for oral argument, which was cancelled by the Board upon the
`
`parties’ joint request. See Paper No. 35. The parties now jointly seek termination
`
`of the proceeding. Accordingly, termination of the instant IPR at this stage is
`
`appropriate under PTAB precedent and would save the Board significant
`
`administrative and judicial resources in issuing a final written decision.
`
`B. Written Settlement Agreement
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), the parties are filing herewith as Exhibit
`
`2054 a true copy of the complete settlement agreement entered between the parties
`
`on June 27, 2018. The settlement agreement has been filed for access by the
`
`“Parties and Board Only” due to the highly sensitive business confidential
`
`7
`
`
`
`information it contains. The parties desire that the settlement agreement be
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`maintained as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c), and a separate joint request for such is being filed concurrently.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner and Patent Owner respectfully request that the Board grant the
`
`parties’ Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding in its entirety and grant the
`
`request to treat the settlement agreement between the parties as business
`
`confidential information.
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: / M.C. Phillips /
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`
`Registration No. 43,403
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Reg. No. 43,403
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW
`7327 SW Barnes Road #521
`Portland, Oregon 97225
`Phone: (503) 964-1129
`Fax: (703) 439-1624
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`
`Date: 2018 July 9
`
`
`
`
`Robert F. Green
`Reg. No. 27,555
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`GREEN, GRIFFITH & BORG-BREEN, LLP
`City Place, Suite 3900
`676 N Michigan Avenue
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Phone: (312) 883-8000
`Fax: (312) 883-8001
`rgreen@greengriffith.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Date: 2018 July 9
`
`
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Reg. No. 47,657
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: 212-459-7230
`Fax: 212-355-3333
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
` By: / Elizabeth J. Holland /
`
` Elizabeth J. Holland
`
` Registration No. 47,657
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`Reg. No. 53,179
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`chardman@goodwinlaw.com
`Tel: 212-459-7295
`Fax: 212-355-3333
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01160
`U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on July 9, 2018, the foregoing JOINT MOTION TO
`
`TERMINATE INTER PARTES REVIEW, including all papers filed therewith,
`
`have been served on the petitioner’s counsel of record via email, as agreed to by
`
`counsel, as follows:
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland: EHolland@goodwinlaw.com
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman: CHardman@goodwinlaw.com
`
`By: / M.C. Phillips /
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`