throbber
IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`POZEN INC. and HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC.,
`Patent Owners.
`
`___________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`______________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`On April 6, 2018, Petitioner, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“DRL”), filed an
`
`IPR petition and a motion to join its petition to IPR2017-01995 (“the Mylan IPR”).
`
`The Board granted the Mylan IPR on March 8, 2018 and issued a Scheduling Order
`
`setting November 15, 2018 as the date for oral argument.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. DRL’s Petition is time-barred
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted
`
`if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on
`
`which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a
`
`complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”
`
`Here, DRL was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’698
`
`patent on August 25, 2016. 7 months after the deadline to file an inter partes review
`
`petition, and 19 months since it was served with a complaint, DRL now requests
`
`joinder to circumvent the time-bar on its belated petition. While 37 CFR § 42.122
`
`allows for a petition that is accompanied by a request for joinder to circumvent the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`one-year time bar, DRL unnecessary delayed filing its petition well past the one year
`
`IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`bar.1
`
`DRL masks its gamesmanship as “promot[ing] efficient and consistent
`
`resolution of the invalidity grounds at issue.” On the contrary, allowing parties to
`
`file belated petitions accompanied by motions for joinder well after the one-year
`
`time bar creates inefficiencies, as the Board and the Patent Owners are held in
`
`indefinite limbo as to whether the statute of limitations has tolled on validity
`
`challenges.
`
`Here, DRL had plenty of time and opportunity to file its own Petition, yet
`
`chose to wait until long after it was sued on the ’698 patent. In the related district
`
`court action, DRL served invalidity contentions more than one year ago, in February
`
`2017. Expert reports have been exchanged, and expert depositions are set to begin.
`
`DRL should not be allowed to game the system, waiting until the last possible
`
`moment to file a challenge to the patent in this forum. Such behavior runs afoul of
`
`the intent and purpose of the inter partes review.
`
`B. DRL Should Be Barred From Relying On New Experts
`There are significant differences between DRL’s petition and Mylan’s petition
`
`
`1 The Mylan IPR that Petitioner seeks to join is, itself, time barred. See IPR2017-
`
`01995, Paper 24.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`in that DRL’s petition includes declarations from two new experts, Dr. Meyer Solny
`
`IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`and Dr. Richard Bergstrom rather than relying on the experts in the Mylan IPR.
`
`These new expert declarations introduce new arguments. This fact alone supports
`
`denial of DRL’s motion for joinder. See IPR2016-01332 Paper 21 (“Granting
`
`joinder in view of [Petitioner’s] two different declarations and new evidence would
`
`add an additional dimension to the substantive issues.”). Although DRL
`
`subsequently informed Patent Owner and the Board that “Mylan has agreed to share
`
`its experts with DRL,” DRL has made no representation that it would withdraw its
`
`own expert declarations or otherwise agree to not rely on the direct testimony of its
`
`experts in any way.
`
`If the Board grants DRL’s motion for joinder, the expert declarations of
`
`DRL’s experts should be expunged from the record and DRL should be precluded
`
`from relying on such new evidence.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owners respectfully request that Petitioner’s
`
`Motion for Joinder be denied. In the alternative, if the Board finds the Motion for
`
`Joinder to be proper, Patent Owners respectfully request the following conditions:
`
`1. DRL agrees to rely solely on Mylan’s expert;
`
`2. DRL agrees to consolidated briefing subject to the word count limits for a
`
`single party except for motions that involve only DRL;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`3. DRL agrees that cross-examination of Patent Owner’s witnesses will occur
`
`within the timeframe that the rules allot for one party; and
`
`4. DRL agrees that Mylan will conduct the oral argument.
`
`Dated: May 9, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas A. Blinka/
`Thomas A. Blinka, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 44,541
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2018-00894
`Patent No. 9,220,698
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I, Thomas A. Blinka, hereby certify that on this 9th day of May 2018, the
`
`
`
`
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNERS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION
`
`FOR JOINDER was served via email on the following:
`
`Alan H. Pollack (Reg. No. 39,802)
`BUDD LARNER, P.C.
`150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
`Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
`Tel: (973) 379-4800
`apollack@buddlarner.com
`
`
`Dated: May 9, 2018
`
`Dmitry V. Shelhoff
`Stuart D. Sender (Reg. No. 34,248)
`Louis H. Weinstein (Reg. No. 45,205)
`BUDD LARNER, P.C.
`150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
`Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
`Tel: (973) 379-4800
`dshelhoff@buddlarner.com
`ssender@buddlarner.com
`lweinstein@buddlarner.com
`
`
`
`/Thomas A. Blinka/
`Thomas A. Blinka
`Registration No. 44,541
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket