UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-00162
`Patent 7,820,788 B2
`Issued: October 26, 2010
`
`Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF
`DELIVERY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AGENTS
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2018-00162
`Patent 7,820,788 B2
`Issued: October 26, 2010
`
`Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS OF
`DELIVERY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL AGENTS
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ..........................1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. DISCUSSION..................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Cipla’s Motion for Joinder is Timely....................................................4
`
`The Four Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder........................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate Because it Will Promote an
`Efficient Determination of the Validity of the ’788
`Patent Without Prejudice to any Party........................................4
`
`The Cipla Petition Does Not Raise Any New Grounds
`of Unpatentability and Therefore Does Not Add
`Additional Complexity to the Grounds in the Actavis
`Petition ........................................................................................5
`
`Joinder Would Not Affect the Schedule of the Actavis
`IPR...............................................................................................6
`
`Joinder Will Simplify Briefing and Discovery Because
`Cipla Will Agree to Consolidate Filings and Coordinate
`Discovery ....................................................................................7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................8
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abraxis BioScience, LLC, et al. v. Actavis LLC,
`C.A. No. 2:16-cv-01925 .......................................................................................2
`
`Abraxis BioScience, LLC, et al., v. Cipla Ltd.,
`C.A. No. 2:16-cv 0974-JMV-MF .........................................................................2
`
`Actavis LLC v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC,
`IPR2017-1101, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. 10, 2017)............................................1, 2, 3
`
`Amerigen Pharm. Ltd., v. UCB Pharma GmbH,
`IPR2016-01665, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2016) ...................................................7
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (PTAB July 29, 2013)................................................6
`
`Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC,
`IPR2014-01543, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 24, 2014)................................................6
`
`Lupin Ltd. v. Horizon Therapeutics, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00284, Paper 11 (PTAB June 8, 2016) .................................................6
`
`Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`IPR2017-01960, Paper 1 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017).............................................3, 4
`
`Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co.,
`IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016)...........................................5, 6
`
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2013)...............................................6
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015)................................................6
`
`Torrent Pharm. Ltd., v. UCB Pharma GmbH,
`IPR2016-01636, Paper 10 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2016) .................................................7
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102..........................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .....................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103..........................................................................................................2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .....................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 .......................................................................................................1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ........................................................................................1, 3, 4
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner Cipla Ltd. respectfully requests its petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of claims 1–12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,788 B2 (the “’788 patent”) (the
`
`“Cipla Petition”), be granted and joined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) with the petition for inter partes review filed by
`
`Actavis LLC concerning the ’788 patent: Actavis LLC v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC,
`
`IPR2017-01101 (the “Actavis Petition”). Cipla timely submits this request for
`
`joinder less than one month after the institution of the Actavis Petition by the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`The Board instituted review of the Actavis Petition on October 10, 2017.
`
`The Cipla Petition is identical to the Actavis Petition in all substantive respects,
`
`includes identical exhibits to the Actavis Petition, and relies upon the same expert
`
`declarant as the Actavis Petition.1 Actavis does not oppose this motion. As such,
`
`institution and joinder will not create an additional burden for the Board and will
`
`lead to efficient resolution of the inter partes review proceeding.
`
`1 Cipla relies on an expert declaration that is substantively identical to the Actavis
`
`expert declaration, except for a single sentence that indicates that Cipla has
`
`retained Cory J. Berkland, Ph.D. See EX1002 ¶ 1.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`II.
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`The Cipla Petition and the Actavis Petition are related to patents that are
`
`being asserted by Abraxis BioScience, LLC and Celgene Corp. in the District of
`
`New Jersey in at least Abraxis BioScience, LLC, et al., v. Cipla Ltd., C.A. No.
`
`2:16-cv 0974-JMV-MF and Abraxis BioScience, LLC, et al. v. Actavis LLC, C.A.
`
`No. 2:16-cv-01925. Abraxis BioScience, LLC and Celgene Corp. have asserted
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,820,788; 7,923,536; 8,138,229; and 8,853,260 (“the Abraxis
`
`patents”) in the district court litigation.
`
`2.
`
`The Board has already issued its decision instituting inter partes review
`
`(“Decision”) on all challenged claims of the ’788 patent on the same grounds
`
`raised in the concurrently filed Petition for Inter Partes Review.2 See IPR2017-
`
`1101 (Paper 7). In its October 10, 2017 Decision, the Board found that Petitioner
`
`Actavis has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 and 11–12 of the
`
`’788 patent are unpatentable for failing to satisfy the novelty requirement of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 and claims 1–12 of the ’788 patent are unpatentable for failing to
`
`satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Id.
`
`2 The Board has instituted review in IPR2017-01101, IPR 2017-01103, and
`
`IPR2017-01104 (collectively, “the Actavis IPRs” and individually, “the Actavis
`
`IPR”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`3.
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review of the challenged claims on the
`
`following separate grounds:
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1–9 and 11–12 of the ’788 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b) as anticipated by Desai.
`
`Ground 2.A: Claims 1–12 of the ’788 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Desai.
`
`Ground 2.B: Claims 1–12 of the ’788 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`obvious over Desai, Kadima, and Liversidge.
`
`See IPR2017-1101 (Paper 7).
`
`The Cipla Petition is based on the same grounds and seeks to join the
`
`instituted inter partes review on these challenged claims.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Board may join any person who properly files
`
`a petition for inter partes review to an existing inter partes review. A request for
`
`joinder must be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of any inter
`
`partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`A motion for joinder should “(1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`may be simplified.” Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-
`
`01960, Paper 1 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (quoting Macronix Int’l Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Spansion LLC, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014)).
`
`Cipla’s motion is timely, and the Board should grant joinder because
`
`consideration of the foregoing factors weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`A.
`
`Cipla’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`Joinder may be requested “no later than one month after the institution date
`
`of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Here, the Board instituted review of the Actavis Petition on October 10, 2017, and
`
`Cipla files this motion for joinder less than one month after this institution date.
`
`B.
`
`The Four Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors that the Board considers in motions for joinder
`
`favors granting of Cipla’s motion. Joinder will not add further complication to the
`
`proceedings or cause prejudice to the parties. Joinder will significantly simplify
`
`briefing, discovery, and trial associated with review of the ’788 patent.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate Because it Will Promote an Efficient
`Determination of the Validity of the ’788 Patent Without
`Prejudice to any Party
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will promote efficiency by determining
`
`validity of the same patent claims in a single proceeding. The Cipla Petition and
`
`Actavis Petition are substantively the same, challenging the validity of the same
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`claims of the ’788 patent on identical grounds. Cipla also relies on the same
`
`supporting evidence in its petition as Actavis, and even submits a supporting
`
`declaration from the same expert, including the same discussion of the prior art and
`
`the same analysis as the declaration Actavis submitted. A consolidated proceeding
`
`will also be more efficient, less wasteful, and avoid duplication because all the
`
`issues raised in both the Actavis Petition and the Cipla Petition can be resolved in a
`
`single trial.
`
`Joining Cipla as a party to the Actavis IPR also would not cause prejudice to
`
`any party. Joinder will instead streamline the proceedings and reduce the costs and
`
`burdens on the parties. For example, joinder will decrease the number of papers
`
`the parties must file and the time and expense for depositions and other discovery
`
`required by duplicative proceedings. In addition, the Cipla Petition has been filed
`
`early enough that it will not affect the schedule of the inter partes review or the
`
`costs associated with a full trial.
`
`This factor favors joinder.
`
`2.
`
`The Cipla Petition Does Not Raise Any New Grounds of
`Unpatentability and Therefore Does Not Add Additional
`Complexity to the Grounds in the Actavis Petition
`
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs., Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Joinder
`
`of this proceeding with the Actavis IPR will not raise any new issues of
`
`patentability and will not add complexity to the case. The Cipla Petition does not
`
`add any grounds for unpatentability that are not already present in the Actavis IPR.
`
`As explained above, the Cipla Petition is substantially identical to the Actavis
`
`Petition and relies upon the same expert declarant, the same prior art, and the same
`
`analysis. The Board has granted motions for joinder in similar factual scenarios.
`
`See Lupin Ltd. v. Horizon Therapeutics, Inc., IPR2016-00284, Paper 11 at 6
`
`(PTAB June 8, 2016); Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am. Vehicular Scis. LLC, IPR2014-
`
`01543, Paper 11 at 2–4 (PTAB Oct. 24, 2014); Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1
`
`Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00495, Paper 13 at 5–9 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2013); Dell Inc.
`
`v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 6–10 (PTAB July 29,
`
`2013).
`
`This factor favors joinder.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Would Not Affect the Schedule of the Actavis IPR
`
`The Board has granted motions for joinder when “joinder should not
`
`necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent Owner beyond that
`
`already required in [the original IPR].” See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`
`IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Oct. 15, 2015). Because the substantial
`
`similarity between the Cipla IPR and the Actavis IPR, joinder should not have a
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`substantial impact on the parties or the trial schedule. To the extent joinder would
`
`cause any delay, Cipla agrees to coordinate with Actavis such that Cipla’s
`
`participation would result in no changes to the schedule.
`
`This factor favors joinder.
`
`4.
`
`Joinder Will Simplify Briefing and Discovery Because Cipla Will
`Agree to Consolidate Filings and Coordinate Discovery
`
`To prevent joinder from imposing any additional burden and to further
`
`ensure that there are no changes in the potential trial schedule, Cipla will agree, if
`
`joinder is granted and as long as Actavis remains a party to the proceeding, to
`
`coordinate discovery with Actavis and to consolidate filings with Actavis for all
`
`substantive papers except motions that do not involve Actavis. Furthermore if
`
`joinder is granted and as long as Actavis remains a party to the proceeding, Cipla
`
`agrees that cross-examinations will occur within the timeframe normally allotted
`
`by the rules to one party and will not need to be extended in light of the joinder.
`
`Thus, no further time to address additional arguments or discovery will be
`
`required by any party, and the consolidated trial can proceed at the same pace as if
`
`Cipla were not joined. Joinder is appropriate under these circumstances. See
`
`Torrent Pharm. Ltd, v. UCB Pharma GmbH, IPR2016-01636, Paper 10 at 5–6
`
`(PTAB Dec. 7, 2016); Amerigen Pharm. Ltd., v. UCB Pharma GmbH, IPR2016-
`
`01665, Paper 8 at 6 (PTAB Dec. 7, 2016).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`This factor favors joinder.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Cipla respectfully requests that the Board grant its
`
`concurrently filed Petition for inter partes review of the ’788 patent and join the
`
`grounds of invalidity therein raised with the Actavis IPR.
`
`Dated: November 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/
`Michael J. Freno (Reg. No. 57,163)
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.370.7947
`F: 206.623.7022
`michael.freno@klgates.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Anil Patel (pro hac vice to be filed)
`K&L GATES LLP
`1000 Main Street, Suite 2550
`Houston, TX 77002
`T: 713.815.7304
`F: 713.583.9417
`anil.patel@klgates.com
`
`Jason A. Engel (Reg. No. 51,654)
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60602
`T: 312.807.4236
`F: 312.827.8145
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`jason.engel.ptab@klgates.com
`
`Peter L. Giunta (Reg. No. 55,207)
`K&L GATES LLP
`599 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`T: 212.536.3910
`F: 212.536.3901
`peter.giunta@klgates.com
`
`Elizabeth Weiskopf (pro hac vice to
`be filed)
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.370.7964
`F: 206.623.7022
`elizabeth.weiskopf@klgates.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, I certify that the foregoing MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER contains less than 15 pages, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1).
`
`Dated: November 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/
`Michael J. Freno (Reg. No. 57,163)
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.370.7947
`F: 206.623.7022
`michael.freno@klgates.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) , I certify that, on November 9, 2017, true
`
`and correct copies of the foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER, were served by
`
`FedEx overnight delivery on Patent Owner at the correspondence address of record
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 7,820,788 B2, and other addresses known as likely to effect
`
`service, as follows:
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`755 Page Mill Rd.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
`Customer Number: 25226
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Eric C. Stops
`Evangeline Shih
`Andrew S. Chalson
`Catherine T. Mattes
`Ross C. Misskelley
`Robert B. Wilson
`Daniel C. Wiesner
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`
`Anthony M. Insogna
`J. Patrick Elsevier, Ph.D.
`Cary Miller, Ph.D.
`Steven J. Corr
`JONES DAY
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, CA 92121
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00162 (7,820,788 B2)
`
`Dated: November 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/
`Michael J. Freno (Reg. No. 57,163)
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`T: 206.370.7947
`F: 206.623.7022
`michael.freno@klgates.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
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
