`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 67
`Entered: February 20, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC. and NUVO PHARMACEUTICALS
`(IRELAND) DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY,
`Patent Owners.
`______________
`
`
`Case IPR2017-019951 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`Case IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`Case IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)2
`_____________
`
`
`Before TONI R. SCHEINER, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
`DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Revising the Scheduling Order
`37 C.F.R. 42.5(c)
`
`
`1 Petitioner Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Dr. Reddy’s”), from IPR2018-
`00894 has been joined as a Petitioner to this proceeding.
`2 We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in all three cases.
`The parties are not authorized to use this style heading for subsequent papers
`without Board preapproval.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01995 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`
`
`On January 31, 2019, pursuant to Board order, the parties submitted a
`joint Proposed Scheduling Order in IPR2017–01995 (“the 1995 IPR”) and
`IPR2018–00272 (“the 272 IPR”). Paper 62.3 In accordance with our prior
`guidance, the Proposed Scheduling Order consolidates the schedules for the
`1995 IPR and the 272 IPR, and proposes an oral argument date for both
`proceedings of June 14, 2019. Id. at 1–2. The Proposed Scheduling Order
`also notes that we have not yet determined whether to institute review in
`IPR2018-01341 (“the 1341 IPR”) or whether to grant Petitioner Dr. Reddy’s
`motion for joinder to the 272 IPR. Id. at 1. However, the parties propose
`the same dates for the 1341 IPR if we institute review and grant the motion
`for joinder. Id.
`After having considered the joint Proposed Scheduling Order, we
`determine that administering all three proceedings under the same schedule
`is appropriate in order “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution” of each proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Accordingly, we adopt
`the parties’ proposed revisions to the Scheduling Order in the 1995 IPR and
`the 272 IPR, with the exception of DUE DATE 3, which we schedule as the
`due date for Patent Owner’s Sur-reply.4 The attached DUE DATE
`APPENDIX supersedes the DUE DATE APPENDIX attached to the
`Scheduling Order issued in the 1995 IPR and the 272 IPR (1995 IPR, Paper
`19; 272 IPR, Paper 10). Should we institute review and grant the motion for
`
`3 The parties submitted substantively similar papers in each proceeding.
`Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the papers filed in the 1995 IPR.
`4 See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg.
`39,989 (Aug. 13, 2018) at 14 (explaining that a patent owner sur-reply
`“essentially replaces the previous practice of filing observations on cross-
`examination testimony”); 1995 IPR Paper 60, 2–3 n.4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01995 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`
`joinder in the 1341 IPR, the same schedule will apply because granting the
`joinder motion will join Dr. Reddy’s to the 272 IPR and terminate the 1341
`IPR.
`
`
`It is
`
`
`ORDERED that the 1995 IPR and the 272 IPR shall be administered
`under a single schedule as reflected in the DUE DATE APPENDIX attached
`to this Order; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the DUE DATE APPENDIX attached to
`this Order supersedes the DUE DATE APPENDIX attached to the
`Scheduling Order issued in each of the 1995 IPR and the 272 IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01995 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`DUE DATE 1 ............................................................................ March 1, 2019
`Patent owner’s response to the petition in the 272 IPR (this date will
`also apply to Petitioner Dr. Reddy’s petition from the 1341 IPR if we
`institute review and join Dr. Reddy’s to the 272 IPR)
`DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 26, 2019
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................. May 10, 2019
`Patent owner’s sur-reply to patent owner’s response
`
`DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................. May 17, 2019
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 .............................................................................. May 24, 2019
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................ May 31, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................ June 14, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01995 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`
`PETITIONERS:
`
`Brandon M. White
`Emily Greb
`Bryan D. Beel
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`egreb@perkinscoie.com
`bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Alan Pollack
`Stuart D. Sender
`Louis Weinstein
`BUDD LARNER PC
`apollack@buddlarner.com
`ssender@buddlarner.com
`lweinstein@buddlarner.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS:
`
`Thomas A. Blinka
`Jonathan G. Graves
`Susan Krumplitsch
`Ellen Scordino
`Lauren Krickl
`COOLEY LLP
`tblinka@cooley.com
`jgraves@cooley.com
`skrumplitsch@cooley.com
`escordino@cooley.com
`lkrickl@cooley.com
`
`Margaret J. Sampson
`Stephen M. Hash
`Jeffrey S. Gritton
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`Margaret.Sampson@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01995 (Patent 9,220,698 B2)
`IPR2018-00272 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`IPR2018-01341 (Patent 9,393,208 B2)
`
`Stephen.Hash@bakerbotts.com
`Jefferey.Gritton@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`