`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 26
`Entered: May 17, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GENENTECH, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02031
`Case IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B11
`____________
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are common to each of the above-
`referenced cases. We exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed
`in each case. The parties are not authorized to use this style of heading.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`On March 29, 2018, we instituted inter partes review on a subset of
`grounds set forth in the Petition. Paper 19, 24–25.2 On May 19, 2018 we
`instituted inter partes review on six additional grounds in view of SAS Inst.,
`Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) and Office Guidance on the Impact of
`SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-
`process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial).
`Paper 25. We further instructed parties “to confer to determine whether they
`desire any changes to the schedule not authorized by stipulation under the
`scheduling order in this case or any further briefing, and, if so, shall request
`a conference call with the panel to seek authorization for such changes.” Id.
`at 5.
`
`By email dated May 17, 2018, the parties jointly proposed a revised
`schedule, including a postponement of Due Dates 6 and 7. Paper 3001. The
`panel finds this proposal acceptable.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the following Due Dates shall apply to IPR2017-
`02031 and IPR2017-02032:
`
`DUE DATE 1 ................................................................ August 7, 2018
`Patent owner’s response to the petition
`Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2 ............................................................ October 30, 2018
`Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
`
`
`2 For convenience, we cite to IPR2017-02031.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ........................................................ November 27, 2018
`Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion
`to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 ......................................................... December 18, 2018
`Observations regarding cross-examination of reply witness
`Motion to exclude evidence
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5 ................................................................ January 2, 2019
`Response to observations
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6 .............................................................. January 9, 2019
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................ January 24, 2019
`Oral argument (if requested).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`IPR2017-02032
`Patent 6,407,213 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Ire J. Levy
`Brian A. Fairchild
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`ilevy@goodwinlaw.com
`bfairchild@goodwinlaw.co
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Rebecca A. Whitfield
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Rebecca.Whitfield@wilmerhale.com
`
`Adam R. Brausa
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`abrausa@durietangri.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`