Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: June 29, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`CELLTRION, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
` Case IPR2017-01373
` Case IPR2017-01374
` (Patent 6,407,213 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before ZHENYU YANG, and ROBERT A. POLLOCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 66
`Entered: June 29, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`CELLTRION, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
` Case IPR2017-01373
` Case IPR2017-01374
` (Patent 6,407,213 B1)
`____________
`
`
`Before ZHENYU YANG, and ROBERT A. POLLOCK,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Request for Oral Argument
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`
`Petitioner Celltrion, Inc., and Patent Owner Genentech, Inc., each
`requested oral argument in this inter partes review trial pursuant to 37
`C.F.R. § 42.70. Papers 65 and 60, respectively.1 Upon consideration, these
`requests are granted. Oral argument shall commence at 1 PM Eastern Time
`on July 16, 2018, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany
`Street, Alexandria, Virginia. Each party will have fifty minutes of total time
`to present arguments.
`The Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of proof that the claims at
`issue in this review are unpatentable. Therefore, Petitioner will open the
`hearing by presenting argument regarding the pending grounds of
`unpatentability. Patent Owner will then have the opportunity to respond to
`Petitioner’s arguments. If desired, Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to
`respond to arguments presented by Patent Owner.
`The Board will provide a court reporter for the hearing and the
`reporter’s transcript will constitute the official record of the hearing. There
`will be only one transcript, which will be entered into each case. If an
`argument is not applicable to both cases, the presenter should clearly state
`which case the argument is directed to.
`The hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance, which
`will be accommodated on a first come, first served basis. Certain
`confidential information previously has been sealed under a Protective Order
`entered in these proceedings. See, e.g., Paper 17, 3. The parties are advised
`to not include any confidential information in the demonstrative exhibits or
`specifically refer to it in the arguments. Alternatively, the party originally
`
`
`1 For convenience we refer to papers as numbered in IPR2017-01373.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`
`moved to seal the information may waive its request and choose to disclose
`and rely on the information during 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. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b),
`demonstrative exhibits are generally 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. By email dated June 28, 2018, Petitioner requests
`that we extend the deadline for service of demonstratives to 10 PM Eastern
`Time on July 11, 2018. Ex. 3001.2 Petitioner avers that Patent Owner does
`not oppose a mutual extension of time. Accordingly, Petitioners request is
`granted.
`Notwithstanding 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), each party shall, instead of
`filing, provide a courtesy copy of the demonstrative exhibits to the Board by
`emailing them to Trials@uspto.gov no later than 8 AM Eastern Time on July
`13, 2018.
`Due to the nature of the demonstrative exhibits, the panel does not
`anticipate that objections to such exhibits would likely be sustained.
`Nevertheless, to the extent that there is any objection to the propriety of the
`
`
`2 Exhibit 3001 is an email sent by counsel for Petitioner Pfizer in IPR2017-
`01488 and IPR2017-01489, which relate to the same patent at issue here and
`are scheduled for oral argument on the same day. Because that email copies
`counsel for Petitioner Celltrion in IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374, we
`presume that Celltrion joins in the request. Counsel should contact the
`Board immediately if this is not intended.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`
`demonstrative exhibits, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to
`resolve any issue. If the parties cannot resolve the issues regarding the
`demonstrative exhibits on their own, the objecting party may file a one-page
`list of its objections to the demonstrative exhibits with the Board no later
`than 8 AM Eastern Time on July 13, 2018. The objecting party should
`identify with particularity which portions of the demonstrative exhibits it
`objects to, and include a one-sentence statement of the reason for each
`objection. No argument or further explanation is permitted. The panel will
`schedule a conference call if necessary. Any objection to demonstrative
`exhibits that is not timely presented will be considered waived.
`The parties are reminded that each presenter must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number)
`referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript. Upon introducing a demonstrative exhibit during oral
`argument that includes argument or evidence subject to a motion to strike or
`exclude, the introducing party shall inform the panel that such motion is
`pending.
`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
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`In light of the foregoing, it is:
`ORDERED that oral hearing, conducted pursuant to the procedures
`outlined above, shall commence at 1 PM Eastern Time on July 16, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall exchange demonstratives
`no later than 10 PM Eastern Time on July 11, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall email a courtesy copy of
`its demonstrative exhibits to the Board no later than 8 AM Eastern Time on
`July 13, 2018;
`FURTHER ORDERED that each party may file a one-page list of its
`objections to demonstrative exhibits no later than 8 AM Eastern Time on
`July 13, 2018.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Robert V. Cerwinski
`Linnea P. Cipriano
`Sarah J. Fischer
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`chardman@godwinlaw.com
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`recerwinski@goodwinlaw.com
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`sfischer@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Lauren V. Blakely
`Robert J. Gunther Jr.
`Lisa J. Pirozzlo
`Kevin S. Prussia
`Andrew J. Danford
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`David.cavanaugh@wilmrhale.com
`Lauren.blakely@wilmerhale.com
`Robert.Gunther@wilmerhale
`Lisa.Pirozzolo@wilmerhald.com
`Kevin.Prussia@wilmerhale.com
`Andrew.Danford@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`Adam R. Brausa
`Daralyn J. Durie
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`abrusa@durietangri.com
`ddurie@durietangri.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
