`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-01550
`Patent 9,561,197
`
`__________________
`
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 1
`II.
`III. RELATED LITIGATION ............................................................................... 2
`IV. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Board Should Terminate this IPR in its Entirety ........................... 3
`B. Written Settlement Agreement .............................................................. 5
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`V.
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apex Med. Corp. v. Resmed Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00512, Paper 39 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014) ............................................ 4
`Plaid Techs., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00273, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017) ............................................... 4
`Samsonite, LLC v. Otter Products, LLC,
` IPR2015-00507, Paper 13, at 2 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2015) ...................................... 4
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Tex. LLC,
`IPR2016-00421, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) ............................................. 4
`Volusion v. Versata Software,
`CBM2013-00018, Paper 52 (P.T.A.B. June 17, 2014) .......................................... 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 317 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) .................................................................................................1, 2
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) ..................................................................................................... 5
`Other Authorities
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ..................................................................... 3
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 ....................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74 ....................................................................................................... 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) ...............................................................................................1, 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par” or
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`I.
`
`“Petitioner”) and Horizon Therapeutics, LLC (“Horizon” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`jointly move that the Board terminate this inter partes review (IPR) proceeding,
`
`which is directed at U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197 (“the ’197 patent”), in its entirety as
`
`a result of settlement between Petitioner and Patent Owner. See Ex. 2001
`
`(Confidential).
`
`The parties are concurrently filing a separate request that the settlement
`
`agreement (Ex. 2001) being filed herewith be treated as business confidential
`
`information and be kept separate from the files of the involved patent, pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Petitioner filed this IPR petition on August 16, 2018. Patent Owner has yet
`
`to file its Preliminary Response, which is not due until November 30, 2018 (see
`
`Paper No. 5), and the Board has yet to issue a decision instituting inter partes
`
`review. Accordingly, no oral argument has been held and the Board has yet to
`
`issue a final decision in this matter.
`
`On September 17, 2018, Petitioner and Patent Owner entered into a
`
`settlement agreement. See Ex. 2001 (Confidential). Under the terms of the
`
`settlement agreement, the parties agreed to jointly seek termination of IPR2018-
`
`1
`
`
`
`01550, and the parties agreed to dismiss related district court litigation, Horizon
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`Therapeutics, LLC v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-05901-
`
`MAH-KM (D.N.J. filed Aug. 08, 2017). Thus, this settlement agreement resolves
`
`all currently pending Patent Office and District Court proceedings between the
`
`parties involving the ’197 patent.
`
`III. RELATED LITIGATION
`The following currently pending district court litigation proceeding involves
`
`the ’197 patent:
`
`(a) Horizon Therapeutics, LLC v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Civil Action
`
`No. 1:17-cv-05901-MAH-KM (D.N.J. filed Aug. 08, 2017). The
`
`Complaint asserts infringement of the ’197 patent.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Section 317(a) provides: “An inter partes review instituted under this chapter
`
`shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the
`
`petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding before the request for termination is filed.” 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). It
`
`further provides: “If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office
`
`may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section
`
`318(a).” Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`Similarly, 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 provides that “[t]he Board may terminate a trial
`
`without rendering a final written decision, where appropriate, including where the
`
`trial is consolidated with another proceeding or pursuant to a joint request under 35
`
`U.S.C. 317(a).” The Trial Practice Guide additionally counsels that “[t]here are
`
`strong public policy reasons to favor settlement between the parties to proceeding”
`
`and that the Board “expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing of a
`
`settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits of the
`
`proceeding.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`A. The Board Should Terminate this IPR in its Entirety
`As noted in the Statement of Facts, the instant IPR proceeding is in its initial
`
`stages wherein the Board has yet to issue a decision instituting review, and the
`
`parties have jointly requested the Board terminate the proceeding in light of their
`
`settlement agreement. Ex. 2001 (Confidential). Pursuant to that agreement,
`
`Petitioner represents that it will no longer participate in this inter partes review and
`
`will file no further papers. Id. Thus, the Board should terminate the proceeding
`
`with respect to Par, the sole Petitioner in this proceeding. Moreover, because no
`
`petitioner remains after termination with respect to Par, the Board should exercise
`
`its discretion and terminate review in its entirety under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.74.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Board has terminated entire IPR proceedings based on joint motions to
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`terminate before institution, and even after the merits had been fully briefed and
`
`the matter was ready for oral argument. See Samsonite, LLC v. Otter Products,
`
`LLC, IPR2015-00507, Paper 13, at 2 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2015) (granting motion to
`
`terminate pre-institution); Toyota Motor Corp. v. Blitzsafe Tex. LLC, IPR2016-
`
`00421, Paper 28, at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) (granting motion to terminate
`
`even after all substantive papers were filed, “particularly in light of the fact that a
`
`final written decision is not due until more than four months from now”); Plaid
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., IPR2016-00273, Paper 29, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)
`
`(granting motion to terminate because “[t]he parties’ joint motions to terminate
`
`were filed prior to the oral hearings in these cases”); Apex Med. Corp. v. Resmed
`
`Ltd., IPR2013-00512, Paper 39, at 2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2014) (granting joint
`
`motion to terminate after submission of the petitioner’s reply because “the record
`
`is not yet closed, and the Board has not yet decided the merits of this
`
`proceeding.”); Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., et al., CBM2013-00018,
`
`Paper 52, at 2-3 (P.T.A.B. June 17, 2014) (granting motion to terminate after oral
`
`argument).
`
`Here, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement well in advance of
`
`an institution decision and even the deadline for the Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response, which is not due for approximately two months. See Paper No. 5. The
`
`4
`
`
`
`parties now jointly seek termination of the proceeding. Accordingly, termination
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`of the instant IPR at this early stage is appropriate under PTAB precedent and
`
`would save the Board significant administrative and judicial resources in issuing an
`
`institution decision, reviewing additional briefing by the parties, holding oral
`
`argument, and issuing a final written decision. If the present motion is not granted
`
`and the instant IPR is not terminated, Petitioner has agreed to no longer participate
`
`in the instant IPR or any subsequent appeals, pursuant to the settlement agreement
`
`between the parties. See Ex. 2001. (Confidential).
`
`B. Written Settlement Agreement
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), the parties are filing herewith as Exhibit
`
`2001 a true copy of the complete settlement agreement entered between the parties
`
`on September 17, 2018. The settlement agreement has been filed for access by the
`
`“Parties and Board Only” due to the highly sensitive business confidential
`
`information it contains. The parties desire that the settlement agreement be
`
`maintained as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.74(c), and a separate joint request for such is being filed concurrently.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner and Patent Owner respectfully request that the Board grant the
`
`parties’ Joint Motion to Terminate this proceeding in its entirety and grant the
`
`5
`
`
`
`request to treat the settlement agreement between the parties as business
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`confidential information.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: / M.C. Phillips /
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`
`Registration No. 43,403
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Reg. No. 43,403
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`LAURENCE & PHILLIPS IP LAW
`7327 SW Barnes Road #521
`Portland, Oregon 97225
`Phone: (503) 964-1129
`Fax: (703) 439-1624
`mphillips@lpiplaw.com
`
`Date: 2018 September 28
`
`
`
`
`Robert F. Green
`Reg. No. 27,555
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`GREEN, GRIFFITH & BORG-BREEN, LLP
`City Place, Suite 3900
`676 N Michigan Avenue
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Phone: (312) 883-8000
`Fax: (312) 883-8001
`rgreen@greengriffith.com
`
`
`
`Date: 2018 September 28
`
`
`
` By: / David Silverstein /
`
` David Silverstein
`
` Registration No. 61,948
`
`David H. Silverstein
`Reg. No. 61,948
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER
`LLP
`114 West 47th Street, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10036
` (212) 261-5651
`dsilverstein@axinn.com
`
`Aziz Burgy
`Reg. No. 51,514
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER
`LLP
`114 West 47th Street, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 261-5651
`aburgy@axinn.com
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01550
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,197
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on September 28, 2018, the foregoing JOINT REQUEST TO
`
`TERMINATE, including all papers filed therewith, have been served on the
`
`petitioner’s counsel of record via email, as agreed to by counsel, as follows:
`
`David H. Silverstein:
`Aziz Burgy:
`
`Dan Feng Mei:
`
`Christopher M. Gallo:
`
`dsilverstein@axinn.com
`aburgy@axinn.com
`dmei@axinn.com; Ravicti@axinn.com
`cgallo@axinn.com
`
`By:/ M.C. Phillips /
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`
`
`
`7
`
`