`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`Filed January 10, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC
`
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,820,788
`Filed:
`October 26, 2006
`Issued:
`October 26, 2010
`Inventor: Neil P. Desai, et al.
`
`TITLE: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF
`DELIVERY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AGENTS
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2018-00152
`————————————————
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`JOINDER WILL NOT DELAY THE ACTAVIS IPR ................................... 1
`
`A. Abraxis Is the Only Party Seeking to Delay the Proceedings By
`Seeking Additional Discovery that Has No Valid Basis ....................... 1
`
`B.
`
`That Actavis and Apotex Are Competitors Will Not Complicate
`Discovery ............................................................................................... 3
`C. Apotex’s IPR Correctly Named the Real-Parties-in-Interest ................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Denial of Joinder Will Prejudice Apotex and the PTAB, as It Will
`Cause Needless Re-Litigation of the Same Issues ................................ 5
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 25 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) ................................................. 3
`
`Intell. Ventures Mgmt., LLC. v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 ( PTAB Jan. 24, 2013) ............................................... 5
`
`Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) ............................................... 1
`
`Statutes
`
`25 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,759-60 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apotex has submitted a substantively identical petition and declaration as in
`
`the Actavis IPR, has agreed to an understudy role, and has made discovery and
`
`procedural concessions to minimize delay. The Board routinely grants joinder
`
`motions under such circumstances and should do so here. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs.,
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016).
`
`Facing these dispositive facts, Abraxis argues that joinder will cause undue delay
`
`and complexity in discovery, and asserts that all real-parties-in-interest have not
`
`been named. As explained in detail below, each of these arguments is without
`
`merit. Apotex has agreed to adhere to the procedural and discovery constraints in
`
`the Actavis IPR; to the extent there are any discovery delays, they are attributable
`
`solely to Abraxis. And while Abraxis contends that confidentiality issues will add
`
`to the complexity of the proceedings, this argument will be mooted by a two-tiered
`
`protective order in the Actavis IPR. As for its real-party-in-interest challenge,
`
`Abraxis’ arguments fail, because Apotex named all the real-parties-in-interest. The
`
`Board should thus grant Apotex’s joinder motion.
`
`II.
`
`JOINDER WILL NOT DELAY THE ACTAVIS IPR
`A. Abraxis Is the Only Party Seeking to Delay the Proceedings
`By Seeking Additional Discovery that Has No Valid Basis
`
`Abraxis first argues that if joinder were ordered, it would require an extension
`
`of the discovery schedule in order for Abraxis to obtain discovery from Apotex
`
`
`
`
`
`related to the loss of paclitaxel during commercial production of nanoparticles.
`
`Opp. Br. 6-7. This argument fails for several reasons. First, Abraxis will be
`
`unable to satisfy its burden of showing that such additional discovery is “necessary
`
`in
`
`the
`
`interest of
`
`justice.” 25 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5).
`
` Despite extensive
`
`correspondence, Ex. 1027, Abraxis never explained, nor will it be able to explain,
`
`how the paclitaxel loss in Apotex’s large-scale commercial process informs the
`
`amount of paclitaxel loss (if any) in the bench-scale Example 1 of WO 99/00133
`
`(“Desai”), the lead prior art in the Actavis IPR.
`
`Second, Abraxis over-reads the Board’s Institution Decision with respect to
`
`what evidence Abraxis may seek concerning paclitaxel loss. The Board was clear
`
`that Abraxis could provide evidence concerning actual paclitaxel loss in Example 1
`
`of Desai, as well as Abraxis’ Capxol and Abraxane commercial production. Actavis
`
`IPR, Paper 7 at 17-18 & nn. 6-7 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2017). The Board’s instruction
`
`follows from that the fact that this evidence is already under Abraxis’ custody and
`
`control. The Board did not invite Abraxis to undertake a fishing expedition into
`
`Apotex’s post-date processes for making albumin/paclitaxel nanoparticles. Such
`
`evidence is not relevant to the issue of paclitaxel loss in the prior art Desai reference.
`
`Lastly, even if the Board were to allow for additional discovery, it would not
`
`impact the Actavis IPR schedule given that oral argument is not until July 11, 2018,
`
`and the scope of potential production would necessarily be limited pursuant to the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Board’s rules and precedent. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`
`IPR2012-00001, Paper 25 at 5-6 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013). This belies Abraxis’
`
`exaggerated claims of delay should the Board order production by Apotex.1 For this
`
`reason, the Board should also reject Abraxis’ unwarranted request for a six-month
`
`delay in the event that joinder is ordered. Opp. Br. 12-13.
`
`B.
`
`That Actavis and Apotex Are Competitors Will Not
`Complicate Discovery
`
`Abraxis next asserts that the Actavis IPR will be complicated by the fact that
`
`Actavis, Apotex, and Cipla are competitors, pointing to purported difficulties in
`
`coordination and confidentiality. Opp. Br. 7-9. This argument is baseless.
`
`Coordination is not an issue, because Apotex agreed to be bound by the discovery
`
`and procedural constraints set forth in the Actavis IPR, and Actavis consented to
`
`Apotex’s joinder motion. Apotex IPR, Paper 3 at 6-9 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2017).2 As
`
`
`1 Abraxis contends that it may need to redepose Dr. Berkland concerning any new
`
`Apotex documents. Opp. Br. 7. This argument is moot as Abraxis will depose Dr.
`
`Berkland again anyway on his declaration in support of Petitioner’s Reply Brief.
`
`2 Citing no authority, Abraxis argues that Actavis and Apotex must submit
`
`affirmations as to Apotex’s understudy role. Opp. Br. 6. Even if this were the law,
`
`which it is not, Apotex made such an affirmation in its joinder motion, and Actavis
`
`consented to Apotex’s motion. Apotex IPR, Paper 3 at 7-8 (PTAB Nov. 9, 2017).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for confidentiality issues, this argument will be moot given that Petitioners are in the
`
`process of agreeing to be governed by a two-tiered protective order, which provides
`
`for an “outside counsel eyes only” designation.
`
`C. Apotex’s IPR Correctly Named the Real-Parties-in-Interest
`
`Abraxis next makes the puzzling assertion that the naming of Panacea Biotec
`
`Ltd. “presents questions” as to whether all the correct real-parties-in-interest have
`
`been named. Opp. Br. 10. Abraxis points to a U.S. subsidiary of Panacea Biotec
`
`Ltd., Panacea Biotec, Inc. (“Panacea-US”), arguing that Apotex failed to name the
`
`subsidiary or explain the relationship of it to the parent, and also did not explain why
`
`it did not name other Panacea entities. Id. at 10. In view of these purported issues,
`
`Abraxis argues that discovery will be necessary to resolve them. Id. at 11. These
`
`arguments are likewise without merit. In complying with 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2),
`
`Apotex identified the real-parties-in-interest in its petition, namely those parties who
`
`control and finance the proceedings. 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759-60 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Apotex was not required to explain why it did not name other parties, or explain
`
`Panacea Biotec Ltd.’s relationship to its subsidiaries, and Abraxis provides no
`
`support for such obligations. And underscoring the baselessness of Celgene’s
`
`argument, Panacea-US was dissolved in 2011, and Panacea Biotec Ltd. no longer
`
`has any U.S. subsidiaries in any event. See e.g., Exs. 1028, 1029 at p. 115. Lastly,
`
`because Abraxis did not assert that any other parties financed the proceedings or
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserted control over the proceedings, its request for real-party-in-interest discovery
`
`is nothing more than speculative and should be denied. Intell. Ventures Mgmt.,
`
`LLC. v. Xilinx, Inc., IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 at 4 ( PTAB Jan. 24, 2013).
`
`D. Denial of Joinder Will Prejudice Apotex and the PTAB, as It
`Will Cause Needless Re-Litigation of the Same Issues
`
`Despite admitting that Apotex’s petition is substantively identical to the
`
`Actavis petition, Abraxis alleges that denial of joinder will not prejudice Apotex or
`
`the public, contending that Apotex can merely re-file its petition. Opp. Br. 11.
`
`Abraxis asserts that Apotex is under no time pressure because it delayed filing its
`
`petition and is not in litigation. Id. These arguments are without merit.
`
`Denial of joinder will prejudice Apotex and the Board because both will have
`
`to re-litigate the same issues currently raised in the Actavis IPR. And given the
`
`near identity of the petitions, denial of joinder would be a waste of resources and
`
`would be contrary to timely and economically completing the proceedings. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(b). As for Abraxis’ remaining arguments, Apotex timely filed its
`
`petition without delay, and the fact that it is not in litigation is simply irrelevant.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in its opening brief, Apotex
`
`respectfully request that their motion for joinder be granted.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2018
`
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1114 Avenue of the Americas, 35th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: 212-506-3900
`Fax: 212-506-3950
`Email: Abraxane@Steptoe.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John Josef Molenda/
`John Josef Molenda
`Reg. No. 47,804
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Doc. # DC-10743723 v.7
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing REPLY TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`was served in its entirety on January 10, 2017 by filing this document through the
`
`Patent Trial Appeal Board End to End System as well as by delivering a copy via
`
`electronic mail, with Patent Owner’s consent, to the following attorneys for
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner in the Actavis IPR:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Actavis Counsel for Patent Owner Abraxis
`Samuel S. Park (lead counsel)
`J. Patrick Elsevier (lead counsel)
`George C. Lombardi
`Anthony M. Insogna
`Charles B. Klein
`Cary Miller
`Kevin E. Warner
`Christopher J. Harnett
`Eimeric Reig-Plessis
`Lisamarie LoGiudice
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`JONES DAY
`AbraxaneIPR@winston.com
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`cmiller@jonesday.com
`llogiudice@jonesday.com
`charnett@jonesday.com
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Andrew S. Chalson
`Daniel C. Wiesner
`Frank C. Calvosa
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`andrewchalson@quinnemanuel.com
`danielwiesner@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`/Siew Yen Chong/
`Siew Yen Chong
`Counsel for Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp.
`
`Date: January 10, 2018
`
`
`
`