`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Genentech, Inc. by:
`
`
`David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476)
`Lauren V. Blakely (Reg. No. 70,247)
`Robert J. Gunther, Jr. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Lisa J. Pirozzolo (Pro Hac Vice)
`Kevin S. Prussia (Pro Hac Vice)
`Andrew J. Danford (Pro Hac Vice)
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Adam R. Brausa (Reg. No. 60,287)
`Daralyn J. Durie (Pro Hac Vice)
`Durie Tangri LLP
`217 Leidesdorff Street
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`
`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
`Patent No. 6,407,213
`____________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 2
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 4
`A.
`The Eight Prior IPR Petitions Challenging The ’213 Patent ................ 4
`B.
`The Boehringer Follow-On Petitions .................................................... 6
` ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 8
`B.
`The Board Abused Its Discretion By Overturning Its Earlier
`Institution Decision In Order To Institute Review Of Boehringer’s
`Improper Copycat Challenges. .............................................................. 8
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 13
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. July 18, 2017) ............................................ 8
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................................................................... 9, 11
`Hospira, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. July 27, 2017) ............................................ 9
`Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) ............................................ 3
`Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple. Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 10
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ............................................................................ 1, 3, 7, 11
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
`393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 8
`Statutes and Regulations
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .......................................................................................................... 10
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................... 9, 11
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ................................................................................................... 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 1
`Other Authorities
`Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Apr. 26, 2018) ................................................... 7
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) respectfully requests, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`
`
`§ 42.71(d), that the Board reconsider its May 8, 2018 decision (“May Institution
`
`Decision”) instituting inter partes review of previously-denied grounds in light of
`
`the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348
`
`(2018).
`
`Genentech recognizes the extremely high burden placed on movants seeking
`
`reconsideration and does not take this step lightly. Indeed, in the over 30 IPRs that
`
`have been filed by parties seeking to invalidate patents in Genentech’s Herceptin
`
`portfolio, this is the first motion for reconsideration that Genentech has filed.
`
`Genentech requests rehearing because, based on the unique facts presented by this
`
`and the numerous prior IPRs which have been instituted regarding U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,407,213 (“the ’213 patent”), Genentech believes that the institution of Petitioner
`
`Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Boehringer’s”) non-meritorious,
`
`previously-denied grounds rises to the level of an abuse of discretion that unfairly
`
`prejudices Genentech and does not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(“APA”). Upon rehearing, Genentech requests that the Board vacate the May
`
`Institution Decision and deny Boehringer’s request for inter partes review of the
`
`’213 patent in its entirety.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On August 31, 2017, Boehringer filed two IPR petitions challenging
`
`numerous claims of the ’213 patent: IPR2017-02031 (i.e., the present petition) and
`
`IPR2017-02032. These two petitions were the ninth and tenth IPR petitions filed
`
`against the ’213 patent.1
`
`Boehringer copied four grounds in its IPR2018-02031 petition from
`
`IPR2016-01693 (Mylan), IPR2017-01374 (Celltrion), and IPR2017-01488 (Pfizer),
`
`and copied five grounds in its IPR2017-02032 petition from IPR2017-01694
`
`(Mylan), IPR2017-01373 (Celltrion) and IPR2017-01489 (Pfizer)—yet Boehringer
`
`strategically chose not to seek joinder with those earlier-filed proceedings.2
`
`1
`The previous petitions include: IPR2016-01693 and IPR2016-01694, filed
`
`by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”); IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01374,
`
`filed by Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”); IPR2017-01488 and IPR2017-01489, filed by
`
`Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”); and IPR2017-02139 and IPR2017-02140, filed by Samsung
`
`Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”).
`
`2
`
`After Boehringer filed its two petitions challenging the ’213 patent,
`
`Samsung filed two petitions (IPR2017-02139 and IPR2017-02140), which copied
`
`the grounds in Pfizer’s petitions (IPR2017-01488 and IPR2017-01489). Unlike
`
`Boehringer, Samsung sought joinder to Pfizer’s previously-filed petitions, which
`
`the Board granted. (IPR2017-02139 (Paper 11); IPR2017-02140 (Paper 11).)
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`Boehringer thus asked the Board to institute its IPRs on the exact same grounds
`
`
`
`
`
`already instituted in the earlier proceedings, but on a schedule trailing those
`
`proceedings by several months.
`
`As the Board correctly recognized in its original decisions on institution
`
`(“March Institution Decisions”), allowing Boehringer to raise these duplicative
`
`arguments in a new IPR proceeding would waste the Board’s and Genentech’s
`
`resources, and would unfairly allow Boehringer to preview Genentech’s arguments
`
`and evidence before having to address them itself. Thus, the Board properly
`
`denied institution of Boehringer’s nine “copycat” grounds.3
`
`However, after the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v.
`
`Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Board reversed course and instituted the nine
`
`previously-denied grounds. Respectfully, Genentech believes that this action
`
`amounted to an abuse of discretion that violated the APA. The Board did not
`
`articulate any reason why Boehringer’s purported interest in having its petitions
`
`instituted outweighed Genentech’s
`
`interest
`
`in “avoid[ing] harassment and
`
`enjoy[ing] quiet title to [its] rights.” Neil Ziegman, N.P.Z., Inc. v. Stephens,
`
`IPR2015-01860, Paper 11 at 12-13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016). The Board also
`
`
`3
`The Board instituted review of three grounds that were not raised in prior
`
`petitions.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`failed to address the Board’s original reasons for denial, most notably that
`
`
`
`
`
`instituting review of the copycat grounds on a delayed track would result in
`
`proceedings that were unfairly prejudicial to Genentech. (See IPR2017-02031
`
`(Paper 19 at 12); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 17 at 8).)
`
`To the extent that the Board believes that it cannot deny Boehringer’s nine
`
`copycat grounds without also denying the three originally-instituted grounds (i.e.,
`
`that it is limited to an “all or nothing” approach), the correct course is to deny
`
`Boehringer’s petitions entirely rather than subject Genentech to administrative
`
`proceedings that the Board has already determined would be unfair. Genentech
`
`therefore respectfully requests that the Board vacate the May Institution Decision
`
`and deny Boehringer’s request for inter partes review the ’213 patent in its
`
`entirety.
`
` BACKGROUND
`A. The Eight Prior IPR Petitions Challenging The ’213 Patent
`
`In August 2016, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”) challenged the ’213
`
`patent in two separate IPRs (IPR2016-01693 and IPR2016-01694). The Board
`
`terminated these petitions after settlement in March 2017. (IPR2016-01693 (Paper
`
`24); IPR2016-01694 (Paper 23).)
`
`In May 2017, Celltrion, Inc. (“Celltrion”) and Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”) each
`
`filed copycat petitions of the two original Mylan petitions. (IPR2017-01373
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`(Celltrion); IPR2017-01374 (Celltrion); IPR2017-01488 (Pfizer); IPR2017-01489
`
`
`
`
`
`(Pfizer).) In September 2017, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) also filed
`
`copycat petitions of the Mylan/Celltrion/Pfizer petitions (IPR2017-02139 and
`
`IPR2017-02140).
`
`On December 1, 2017, the Board instituted IPRs on all grounds recited in the
`
`four Celltrion and Pfizer petitions. (IPR2017-01373 (Paper 16); IPR2017-01374
`
`(Paper 15); IPR2017-01488 (Paper 27); IPR2017-01489 (Paper 27).) On February
`
`22, 2018, the Board similarly instituted IPRs on all grounds recited in the Samsung
`
`petitions and granted Samsung’s motions to join each of its petitions to a
`
`corresponding Pfizer petition. (IPR2017-02139 (Paper 11); IPR2017-02140 (Paper
`
`11).)
`
`Genentech deposed the petitioners’ four experts and filed its Patent Owner
`
`Response in each of the four IPRs on March 8, 2018. (IPR2017-01373 (Paper 38);
`
`IPR2017-01374 (Paper 38); IPR2017-01488 (Paper 45); IPR2017-01489 (Paper
`
`42).) The petitioners are expected to file their respective petitioner replies on May
`
`25, 2018. The oral hearing in each of the four IPRs is scheduled for July 16, 2018.
`
`(IPR2017-01373 (Paper 33); IPR2017-01374 (Paper 32); IPR2017-01488 (Paper
`
`39); IPR2017-01489 (Paper 37).)
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`The Boehringer Follow-On Petitions
`
`Boehringer filed its two IPR petitions on August 31, 2017—i.e., over seven
`
`months after Genentech filed its December 2016 Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response in the original Mylan proceedings, over three months after Celltrion and
`
`Pfizer filed their petitions, and without any explanation as to why it could not have
`
`filed its petitions earlier.
`
`Boehringer’s follow-on petitions were largely duplicative of the earlier-filed
`
`petitions. In IPR2017-02031, four of the six asserted grounds were identical to
`
`those already instituted in IPR2017-01374 and IPR2017-01488, and in IPR2017-
`
`02032, five of the six asserted grounds were identical to those already instituted in
`
`IPR2017-01373 and IPR2017-01489. (IPR2017-02031 (Paper 19 at 13); IPR2017-
`
`02032 (Paper 17 at 8).) Boehringer could have sought to join its petitions to the
`
`pending IPRs raising the same grounds, yet it chose not to. (See, e.g., id.)
`
`On March 29, 2019, the Board issued its decisions on institution. The Board
`
`instituted review of the three grounds not asserted in prior petitions and denied
`
`review of the nine copycat grounds. (IPR2017-02031 (Paper 19); IPR2017-02032
`
`(Paper 17).) The Board explained that it would waste both the Board’s and
`
`Genentech’s resources if it were to institute review of the exact same grounds that
`
`were already being considered in previously-instituted proceedings. (IPR2017-
`
`02031 (Paper 19 at 13); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 17 at 8).) The Board also found
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`that it would unfairly prejudice Genentech if Boehringer were allowed to preview
`
`
`
`
`
`the parties’ arguments and evidence before having to address them itself. (See,
`
`e.g., id.) The Board gave particular weight to the fact that Boehringer strategically
`
`chose not to request joinder and thereby place its petitions on a delayed track as
`
`compared to the earlier petitions addressing identical grounds. (See, e.g., id.)
`
`In response to the Board’s institution decisions, Boehringer filed motions for
`
`rehearing (IPR2017-02031 (Paper 23); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 21)) requesting that
`
`the Board institute review of the denied copycat grounds. On April 24, 2018,
`
`while Boehringer’s motions were pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision
`
`in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). Shortly thereafter, the Board
`
`issued a Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (“SAS
`
`Guidance”), which stated that “for pending trials in which a panel has instituted
`
`trial only on some of the challenges raised in the petition (as opposed to all
`
`challenges raised in the petition), the panel may issue an order supplementing the
`
`institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.”4
`
`
`4
`Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (Apr. 26, 2018),
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`
`board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-aia-trial.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`On May 8, 2018, the Board issued its decisions on Boehringer’s motions and
`
`
`
`
`
`instituted review of the nine previously-denied copycat grounds. (IPR2017-02031
`
`(Paper 25); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 23).) The Board did not perform a case-
`
`specific assessment of the parties’ competing interests in having the additional
`
`grounds granted or denied, nor did the Board address the “persuasive” reasons that
`
`originally led the Board to deny institution of the copycat grounds.
`
` ARGUMENT
`A. Legal Standard
`
`“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for
`
`an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The Board abuses its discretion
`
`when a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding
`
`not supported by substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`
`relevant factors. Blue Coat Sys., Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01444, Paper 11 at 2
`
`(P.T.A.B. July 18, 2017) (citing Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277,
`
`1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`B.
`
`The Board Abused Its Discretion By Overturning Its Earlier
`Institution Decision In Order To Institute Review Of Boehringer’s
`Improper Copycat Challenges.
`
`In view of the unique situation presented by this case, in which Boehringer’s
`
`copycat IPR grounds trail four active IPRs challenging the same claims of the same
`
`patent on identical grounds, the Board’s decision to institute review of
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`Boehringer’s copycat grounds rises to the level of an abuse of discretion. Under
`
`
`
`
`
`Section 314(a) and Section 325(d), the Board has discretion whether to institute or
`
`deny a petition for inter partes review. That discretion, however, is not
`
`unbounded—it must comply with the governing statutory framework, including the
`
`APA. See, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141 (2016)
`
`(explaining that the APA “enables reviewing courts to set aside agency action that
`
`is contrary to constitutional right, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, or arbitrary
`
`and capricious” (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)); Hospira, Inc.
`
`v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-00739, Paper 16 at 18 (P.T.A.B. July 27, 2017)
`
`(informative) (“Our discretion under § 325(d) involves a balance between several
`
`competing interests [such as] the interests in conserving the resources of the Office
`
`and granting patent owners repose on issues and prior art that have been considered
`
`previously.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
`
`The Board has already determined—correctly—that it would be “unfair[]” to
`
`institute review based on Boehringer’s nine copycat grounds. (IPR2017-02031
`
`(Paper 19 at 12); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 17 at 8).) These grounds are identical to
`
`those at issue in the previously-instituted Celltrion, Pfizer, and Samsung petitions,
`
`yet Boehringer made the tactical decision not to seek joinder so that its petitions
`
`could proceed on a delayed track. (See, e.g., id.) As a result, if Boehringer were
`
`permitted to proceed on these grounds, as the Board has already found, Boehringer
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`would unfairly get a second opportunity to present the grounds with the benefit of
`
`
`
`
`
`seeing the briefing and evidence presented by Genentech as well the Board’s
`
`assessment of their weaknesses (for example, at the oral hearings scheduled for
`
`July 16, 2018). Thus, as Genentech explained in its Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, the Board should not allow Boehringer to engage in this sort of
`
`prejudicial gamesmanship, particularly when coupled with
`
`the
`
`inherent
`
`inefficiency that would result from proceeding on the same grounds already
`
`instituted in the Celltrion, Pfizer, and Samsung IPRs. (IPR2017-02031 (Paper 11
`
`at 13-14); IPR2017-02032 (Paper 9 at 13-14).)). In its March Institution Decision,
`
`the Board explained that it found Genentech’s arguments “persuasive” and denied
`
`institution of Boehringer’s copycat grounds. (IPR2017-02031 (Paper 19 at 12);
`
`IPR2017-02032 (Paper 17 at 8).)
`
`The May Institution Decision fails to provide a proper basis for overturning
`
`the denial of the copycat grounds. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 706; Personal Web Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Apple. Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The Board, as an
`
`administrative agency, must articulate logical and rational reasons for its decision.”
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted)). The Board stated that, in light of the Supreme
`
`Court’s SAS decision and the Board’s subsequently issued guidance on that
`
`decision, it was instituting review on all grounds presented in Boehringer’s
`
`petitions. Yet the Board performed no analysis of the unique circumstances of this
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`case, let alone the “persuasive” reasons that originally led the Board to deny
`
`
`
`
`
`institution of the copycat grounds. The Board’s decision to institute review of
`
`Boehringer’s copycat grounds, despite its prior finding that such proceedings
`
`would be “unfair[]” to Genentech, thus constitutes an abuse of discretion and fails
`
`to comply with the APA.
`
`Nor does the Supreme Court’s SAS decision permit the Board to disregard its
`
`statutory obligations. In SAS, the Court simply held that if the Board institutes
`
`inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of every claim challenged in
`
`the underlying petition. SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354 (2018)
`
`(explaining that its decision was compelled by the plain language of Section 318(a)
`
`stating that the Board “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the
`
`patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner”).
`
`Nothing in SAS requires that the Board institute review in cases where it has
`
`found that the vast majority of grounds asserted in a petition do not merit review.
`
`SAS Institute, 138 S. Ct. at 1356 (explaining that Ҥ 314(a) invests the Director
`
`with discretion on the question whether to institute review”); see also Cuozzo, 136
`
`S. Ct. at 2140 (explaining that there is “no mandate to institute review”). Indeed,
`
`as explained in the Board’s recent “Chat with the Chief” regarding SAS, the Board
`
`may deny a petition (even retroactively) in cases where the majority of grounds do
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`not merit review.5 This is such a case. Across Boehringer’s two petitions, the
`
`
`
`
`
`Board instituted only three grounds while denying the nine copycat grounds. To
`
`the extent the Board is adopting an “all or nothing” approach with respect to the
`
`grounds raised in an IPR petition, the proper result here is to deny the petition in its
`
`entirety rather than creating an unfair and prejudicial proceeding by adding the
`
`previously-denied grounds.
`
`There is also no prejudice to Boehringer in denying institution of its
`
`petitions in their entirety. It was Boehringer’s strategic choice to make the
`
`overwhelming majority of its petitions copycat grounds and yet not to seek joinder
`
`with the earlier-filed petitions. Having positioned itself so that Boehringer’s
`
`petitions would proceed on a later schedule that would allow Boehringer to adjust
`
`its positions with the benefit of the briefing and argument from the earlier-filed
`
`proceedings, Boehringer cannot complain if that strategy results in the denial of its
`
`
`5 Matthew Bultman, PTAB Will Address All Challenger Arguments Post-SAS,
`
`Law360 (Apr. 30, 2018), at https://www.law360.com/articles/1037398/ptab-will-
`
`address-all-challenger-arguments-post-sas (“Judge Weidenfeller said the PTAB
`
`could also deny review retroactively in certain cases where the board already
`
`agreed to partial institution. He used the example of a petition that challenged 20
`
`claims in a patent and review was instituted on just one claim.”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`petitions in their entirety. Boehringer was free to file a petition addressing only the
`
`
`
`
`
`three new grounds and thus far has chosen not to do so. Genentech should not
`
`suffer the consequence of institution of nine prejudicial grounds to permit review
`
`of Boehringer’s three new grounds in these proceedings.
`
` CONCLUSION
`The Board should vacate
`
`the May Institution Decision and deny
`
`Boehringer’s request for inter partes review of the ’213 patent in its entirety.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 22, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/David L. Cavanaugh/
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
`WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`TEL: 202-663-6000
`FAX: 202-663-6363
`EMAIL: david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02031
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 22, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`following materials:
`
` Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing
`
`to be served electronically via electronic mail, as previously agreed by the parties,
`
`on the following attorneys of record:
`
`Ira J. Levy
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`620 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10018
`ILevy@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Brian A. Fairchild
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210
`bfairchild@goodwinlaw.com
`
`DG-BI213@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`/Lauren V. Blakely/
`Lauren V. Blakely
`Reg. No. 70,247
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 600-5039
`
`
`15
`
`