Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 1 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(1 of 162)
`
`No. 18-1638
`_______________________________________
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE and ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Appellants,
`
`
`v.
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and
`AKORN, INC.,
`
`Appellees.
`
`
`Appeal from: Patent and Trademark Office - Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`in Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01127, IPR2016-01128, IPR2016-01129,
`IPR2016-01130, IPR2016-01131, IPR2016-01132, IPR2017-00576,
`IPR2017-00578, IPR2017-00579, IPR2017-00583, IPR2017-00585,
`IPR2017-00586, IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00596, IPR2017-00598,
`IPR2017- 00599, IPR2017-00600, IPR2017-00601.
`______________________________________________________________
`
`APPELLANTS’ MOTION FOR STAY PENDING REVIEW;
`IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED
`_______________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 2 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(2 of 162)
`
`Jonathan Massey
`MASSEY & GAIL LLP
`1325 G. Street, NW, Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel:: (202) 652-4511
`Fax: (312) 379-0467
`jmassey@masseygail.com
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`Allergan, Inc.
`
`Michael W. Shore
`Alfonso Garcia Chan
`Christopher L. Evans
`Joseph F. DePumpo
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214)593-9111
`mshore@shorechan.com
`achan@shorechan.com
`cevans@shorechan.com
`jdepumpo@shorechan.com
`
`Marsha Schmidt
`Attorney at Law
`14928 Perrywood Drive
`Burtonsville, MD 20866
`Tel: (301) 949-5176
`marsha@mkschmidtlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 3 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(3 of 162)
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2
`
`III. STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. CIR. R. 18(d) .......................... 3
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING THE STAY IN THIS
`CASE ................................................................................................. 6
`
`V. ARGUMENT .................................................................................... 7
`
`A. An Appeal Based Upon Sovereign Immunity Divests the Board
`of Jurisdiction and This Court May Order that the Underlying
`Action Be Stayed. ........................................................................... 7
`
`B. The Board’s Designation of Allergan as an “Effective Patent
`Owner” Cannot be Sustained Under the Law and Cannot be
`Used to Avoid the Divestiture of Board Jurisdiction or the
`Tribe’s Immunity. ........................................................................ 11
`
`C. As Part of this Appeal, This Court Has Pendent Jurisdiction
`Over Allergan’s Appeal. ............................................................... 14
`
`D. In the Alternative, A Stay Would Also Be Warranted Under
`Rule 18. ....................................................................................... 18
`
`1. The Balance of Harms and Public Interest Warrant a Stay. ........ 18
`
`2. The Tribe Can Show Probable Success on the Merits. ............... 21
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 25
`
`VII. STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION .................................................... 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 4 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(4 of 162)
`
`VIII. CERTIFICIATE OF INTEREST ...................................................... 29
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 30
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 27(d)(2)(A) ................. 31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 5 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(5 of 162)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES:
`
`A123 Sys. Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec,
`626 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................... 12
`
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1455-WCB, 2017 WL 4803941 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2017) ....... 19
`
`
`Am. Library Ass’n v. FCC,
`406 F.3d 689 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 13, 14
`
`
`Apostol v. Gallion,
`870 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1989) .......................................................... 6, 8, 9, 10
`
`
`Barnhart v. Peabody Coal,
`537 U.S. 149 (2003) ................................................................................... 20
`
`
`Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe,
`204 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 23
`
`
`Brock v. Pierce County,
`476 U.S. 253 (1986) ................................................................................... 20
`
`
`Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Vaughn,
`509 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 9, 17
`
`
`Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen. of U.S.,
`666 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 9
`
`
`Coach Ritchie v. Simpson,
` 170 F.3d 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 13
`
`Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,
`337 U.S. 541 (1949) ..................................................................................... 7
`
`
`Enter. Mgmt. Consultants Inc. v. United States,
`883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir. 1989) ..................................................................... 16
`
`v
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 6 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(6 of 162)
`
`
`Florida Paraplegic Ass'n v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians,
`166 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir. 1999) ................................................................... 23
`
`
`Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) ................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Gilda Industries, Inc. v. U.S.,
`511 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 10
`
`
`Goshtasby v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ill.,
`123 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................... 6
`
`
`Graves v. Principi,
`294 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................... 10
`
`
`Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co.,
`459 U.S. 56 (1982) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`
`Hendricks v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`408 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 16
`
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill,
`481 U.S. 770 (1987) ..................................................................................... 6
`
`
`In re Board of Regents of The University of Texas System,
`435 F. App’x 945 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 8
`
`
`Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Indus. Research Organisation,
`455 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................ 8, 15
`
`
`Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.,
`523 U.S. 751 (1998) .......................................................................... 2, 17, 20
`
`
`Klamath Tribe Claims Comm. v. United States,
`106 Fed. Cl. 87 (2012) ................................................................................ 16
`
`
`MasterCard Int’l Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................ 15
`
`vi
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 7 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(7 of 162)
`
`
`Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community,
`134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) ................................................................ 18, 20, 21, 22
`
`
`Mitchell v. Forsyth,
`472 U.S. 511 (1985) .............................................................................. 7, 8, 9
`
`
`Osage Tribal Council ex rel. Osage Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep't of Labor,
`187 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 8, 17
`
`
`Princz v. Fed. Republic of Germany,
` 998 F.2d 1 (D.C. cir. 1993) .................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalfe & Eddy, Inc.,
`506 U.S. 139 (1993) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,
`436 U.S. 49 (1978) ..................................................................................... 22
`
`
`Saratoga Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Home Loan Bank Bd.,
`879 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 20
`
`
`Specialty House of Creation, Inc. v. Quapaw Tribe,
`2011 WL 308903 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2011) .............................................. 23
`
`
`Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
`897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..................................................................... 21
`
`
`Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n,
`514 U.S. 35 (1995) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`
`Tamiami Partners By & Through Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe
` of Indians of Fla.,
`63 F.3d 1030 (11th Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 9, 17
`
`
`U.S. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,
` 309 U.S. 506 (1940). .................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 8 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(8 of 162)
`
`Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E.V.,
`734 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................... 15
`
`
`Will v. Hallock,
`546 U.S. 345 (2006) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`
`Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation,
`512 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2008) ......................................................................... 8
`
`
`STATUTES:
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ..................................................................................... 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) .............................................................................. 13, 20, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) ......................................................................................... 13
`
`RULES:
`
`FED. CIR. R. 18(d) .......................................................................................1, 3
`
`FED. CIR. R. 32(b) ......................................................................................... 31
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 18(a)(2) ............................................................................ 1, 5, 6
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 19 ......................................................................................... 15
`
`FED. R. APP. P. 32(f) ...................................................................................... 31
`
`REGULATIONS:
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100-41.123 ............................................................................. 13
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ............................................................................................ 23
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
`
`Covidien LP v. Univ. of Fla. Research Found. Inc.,
`IPR2016-01274, 2017 WL 4015009 (Jan. 25, 2017) ................................ 23, 24
`
`viii
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 9 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(9 of 162)
`
`
`Ericsson Inc., et al v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`IPR2017-01186, 2017 WL 6517563 (Dec. 19, 2017) .................................... 24
`
`
`LSI Corp. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`IPR2017-01068, 2017 WL 6517562 (Dec. 19, 2017) .................................... 24
`
`
`Neochord, Inc. v. Univ. of Md., et al.,
`IPR2016-00208, Paper 28 at 20 (May 23, 2017) .......................................... 24
`
`
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP,
`IPR2017-00572, 2017 WL 2992435 (July 13, 2017) ................................ 12, 24
`
`
`Stroud v. Mohegan Tribal Gaming Auth.,
`ARB Case No. 13-079, 14-013, 2014 WL 6850018
`(DOL Adm. Rev. Bd. Nov. 26, 2014) ......................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 10 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(10 of 162)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to FED. R. APP. PROC. 18 and FED. CIR. R. 18,
`
`Appellants, Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (the “Tribe”) and the
`
`Tribe’s licensee, Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) move to stay all
`
`proceedings in the inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”), pending
`
`review in this Court.
`
`The PTAB denied the Tribe’s assertion of sovereign immunity
`
`and proposes to proceed with an April 3, 2018 final hearing date,
`
`with final written decisions anytime thereafter. But Appellants have
`
`filed a Notice of Appeal that divests the PTAB of jurisdiction. This
`
`appeal involves an assertion of sovereign immunity that would be
`
`lost if proceedings before the PTAB continued. Appellants have
`
`requested that the PTAB stay these proceedings, but it has failed to
`
`act on that request.
`
`Accordingly, Appellants request immediate action by this
`
`Courtprior to April 3, 2018to stay proceedings in the PTAB
`
`while this Court resolves the important issues presented by this
`
`appeal.
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 11 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(11 of 162)
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`This case involves the question of whether the Tribe is entitled to
`
`assert sovereign immunity in six IPR proceedings brought by IPR
`
`Appellees. The Tribe is a federally recognized, sovereign American
`
`Indian Tribe with reservation lands in northern New York. It is the
`
`owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,685,930, 8,629,111, 8,642,556,
`
`8,633,162, 8,648,048, and 9,248,191 that are at issue in the IPR
`
`proceedings. “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject
`
`to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has
`
`waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing
`
`Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998).
`
`The Tribe made a special appearance before the Board to contest
`
`its jurisdiction, on the grounds that the Tribe is a sovereign
`
`government that cannot be sued unless Congress unequivocally
`
`abrogates its immunity or the Tribe expressly waives it.
`
`On February 23, 2018, the Board entered its Decision Denying
`
`Tribe’s Motion to Terminate (the “Decision”) concluding that the
`
`Tribe was not entitled to assert sovereign immunity in the IPR
`
`proceedings, that Allergan was the “effective patent owner” of the
`
`patents subject to the IPRs, and that the IPRs could go forward with
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 12 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(12 of 162)
`
`only Allergan participating as the “effective patent owner.”
`
`Appx10-18, Appx34-35, Appx40. At the same time, the Board
`
`issued an Order on the Conduct of Proceedings. Appx43.
`
`The Board set April 3, 2018 as the date for the final hearing and
`
`denied Allergan’s Motion to Withdraw. Appx46. It further ordered
`
`that “[i]n this regard, we recognize that the Tribe may still claim an
`
`ownership interest in the challenged patents in a subsequent appeal
`
`to the Federal Circuit. In order to allow the Tribe to represent its
`
`interests in these proceedings before the Board and in any appeals,
`
`we will allow the Tribe to continue participating as a patent owner
`
`along with Allergan.” Appx45.
`
`On February 28, 2018, Appellants filed a Combined Notice of
`
`Appeal (“Combined Notice”). Appx49.
`
`III.
`
` STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. CIR. R. 18(d)
`
`Pursuant to FED. CIR. R. 18(d), Appellants made an initial
`
`request for a stay pending review before the Board, which remains
`
`pending. Appx100. However, immediate action by this Court is
`
`warranted because the Board proposes to proceed with an April 3,
`
`2018 final hearing date, with final decisions anytime thereafter,
`
`which exceeds the Board’s jurisdiction and will cause irreparable
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 13 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(13 of 162)
`
`harm to Appellants.
`
`When Appellants filed their Combined Notice with the PTAB,
`
`they stated in both the Combined Notice and an accompanying
`
`email that, because the appeal involved the jurisdictional question
`
`of whether the Tribe was immune from the IPR process, the PTAB
`
`was divested of jurisdiction over the IPRs until the issue of the
`
`Tribe’s immunity was resolved by this Court. Appx119. The Board
`
`held a teleconference on March 5, 2018 involving all IPR
`
`Petitioners, the Tribe as patent owner, and Allergan. Appx60.
`
`On the call, the Appellants argued that the Combined Notice of
`
`Appeal divested the Board of jurisdiction. Appx70-78. The IPR
`
`Petitioners echoed the Board’s Order, arguing that the IPRs could
`
`go forward with Allergan alone if the Tribe chooses not to
`
`participate pending the Tribe’s appeal of the sovereignty issue.
`
`Appx79-80. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Board
`
`stated it was “inclined to resist further delay” but asked for briefing
`
`on the matter. Appx95-96. Over Appellants’ objection, the Board
`
`refused to postpone the April 3, 2018 final hearing date or to set a
`
`date for a decision that would allow Appellants time, prior to the
`
`April 3, 2018 final hearing date, to seek a stay with this Court if the
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 14 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(14 of 162)
`
`Board did not stay the IPR proceedings itself. Appx96-98.
`
`The Board directed the Tribe to file a brief on March 8 and the
`
`IPR Petitioners to file their response on March 14. No reply brief
`
`was authorized. Appx95-96.
`
`On March 8, 2018, Appellants filed a Joint Motion Concerning
`
`Board’s Divested Jurisdiction Or, In The Alternative, For A Stay
`
`Pending The Appeal. That motion remains pending before the
`
`Board. Appx100. The motion advised the Board that “[i]f necessary,
`
`the Tribe and Allergan intend to seek emergency relief from the
`
`Federal Circuit no later than March 16, 2018.” Appx114.
`
`By failing to act on Appellants’ request for stay, and by declining
`
`to delay the April 3, 2018 final hearing date and final decisions, the
`
`Board has denied the Tribe the relief it seeks—a stay preventing the
`
`Board from compelling the Tribe to participate in the IPR
`
`proceedings while the appeal on tribal immunity remains pending.
`
`See FED. R. APP. P. 18(a)(2). The Board has left the Tribe with a
`
`Hobson’s choice: (i) to assert its sovereign immunity and refrain
`
`from participating in the IPR proceedings, or (ii) to waive its
`
`immunity and participate in a proceeding to which the Tribe
`
`objects. The Board’s inaction amounts to a constructive denial of
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 15 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(15 of 162)
`
`the Tribe’s stay request, and the timing of it leaves Appellants with
`
`no choice but to seek relief from this Court.
`
`Appellants request that this Court find and enter an Order that
`
`the Combined Notice divested the Board of jurisdiction over the
`
`IPR proceedings and that all IPR proceedings regarding the patents
`
`are stayed pending resolution of this appeal in this Court, including
`
`disposition of any rehearing petitions.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING THE STAY IN
`THIS CASE
`
`Ordinarily, a stay pending appeal is governed by irreparable
`
`harm, likelihood of success, the risk of injury to other parties, and
`
`the public interest. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).
`
`However, when a sovereign appeals the denial of its sovereign
`
`immunity, the usual factors of FED. R. APP. P. 18 are inapplicable.
`
`See Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1338 (7th Cir. 1989) (refusing
`
`to assess a stay using “the traditional criteria for obtaining a stay –
`
`including demonstrating a probability of success on the merits” –
`
`where the “question on appeal . . . is whether the defendant may be
`
`subject to trial”); see also Goshtasby v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 123
`
`F.3d 427, 428-29 (7th Cir. 1997) (applying Apostol in the context of
`
`sovereign immunity).
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 16 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(16 of 162)
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A. An Appeal Based Upon Sovereign Immunity Divests the
`Board of Jurisdiction and This Court May Order that the
`Underlying Action Be Stayed.
`
`The collateral order doctrine established by the Supreme Court
`
`in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)
`
`permits interlocutory review of an order that “conclusively
`
`determine[s] the disputed question, resolve[s] an important issue
`
`completely separate from the merits of the action, and [is] effectively
`
`unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth,
`
`472 U.S. 511, 543 (1985) (Brennan, J., concurring in part). A major
`
`characteristic of the collateral order doctrine is that unless the claim
`
`“can be reviewed before [the proceedings terminate], it can never be
`
`reviewed at all.” Id. at 525. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held
`
`that in a case of immunity “the denial of a substantial claim of
`
`absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for
`
`the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's entitlement not
`
`to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.” Id. This
`
`case falls under the “effectively unreviewable on appeal” prong of
`
`the test.
`
`Hence, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal because a
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 17 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(17 of 162)
`
`decision denying a dismissal based on sovereign immunity is
`
`immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Osage
`
`Tribal Council ex rel. Osage Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 187
`
`F.3d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999) (holding that the denial of tribal
`
`immunity in an agency proceeding is an immediately appealable
`
`collateral order); Wisconsin v. Ho-Chunk Nation, 512 F.3d 921, 928
`
`(7th Cir. 2008) (same); Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 350 (2006);
`
`Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalfe & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S.
`
`139, 145 (1993); In re Board of Regents of The University of Texas System,
`
`435 F. App’x 945, 947-48 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the Board can of course
`
`immediately appeal and seek review.”); Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth
`
`Scientific and Indus. Research Organisation, 455 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (“Under the ‘collateral order’ doctrine, the denial of a
`
`claim of immunity is typically appealable immediately.”).
`
`Because immunity to the process once lost cannot be recovered,
`
`when a collateral order on immunity is appealed, the lower court is
`
`divested of jurisdiction until the appeal is resolved. See Forsyth, 472
`
`U.S. at 524-25. As stated in Apostol, a Forsyth appeal of “whether the
`
`case should be tried” divests the lower court of jurisdiction to
`
`conduct the trial pending appeal because “[i]t makes no sense for
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 18 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(18 of 162)
`
`trial to go forward while the court of appeals cogitates over whether
`
`there should be one.” 870 F.2d at 1338.1
`
`This principle applies with equal force to tribal immunity: “As
`
`with absolute, qualified, and Eleventh Amendment immunity,
`
`tribal sovereign immunity ‘is an immunity from suit rather than a
`
`mere defense to liability; and ... it is effectively lost if a case is
`
`erroneously permitted to go to trial.’” Burlington Northern and Santa
`
`Fe Railway Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2007); see
`
`also Tamiami Partners By & Through Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee
`
`Tribe of Indians of Fla., 63 F.3d 1030, 1050 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Tribal
`
`sovereign immunity would be rendered meaningless if a suit against
`
`a tribe asserting its immunity were allowed to proceed to trial.”).
`
`Accordingly, the IPR proceedings must be stayed to preserve the
`
`Tribe’s meaningful right to appeal the Board’s denial of its
`
`sovereignty. As confirmed in Apostol, an appeal divests the lower
`
`court of jurisdiction to conduct the trial pending appeal because
`
`
`
`1 The collateral order doctrine applies to appeals from agency
`decisions. See, e.g., Chehazeh v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 666 F.3d 118, 136
`(3d Cir. 2012) (noting that all nine courts of appeals confronting
`the issue had concluded that the collateral order doctrine applies to
`judicial review of agency decisions).
`9
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 18
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 19 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(19 of 162)
`
`“[t]he justification for the interlocutory appeal is that the trial
`
`destroys rights created by the immunity.” See Apostol v, 870 F.2d at
`
`1338.
`
`Even in non-immunity cases, “[o]rdinarily, the act of filing a
`
`notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on an appellate court and
`
`divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters related to the
`
`appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58
`
`(1982) (holding that a notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on the
`
`court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those
`
`aspects involved in the appeal” because “a federal district court and
`
`a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction
`
`over a case simultaneously.”); Gilda Industries, Inc. v. U.S., 511 F.3d
`
`1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (same); Graves v. Principi, 294 F.3d 1350,
`
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (same).
`
`The Griggs principle is particularly salient in appeals involving
`
`sovereign immunity. As the D.C. Circuit opined in Princz v. Fed.
`
`Republic of Germany, “[a] district court’s denial of a foreign state’s
`
`motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity is immediately
`
`appealable,” and a “motion for stay” is “unnecessary” under Griggs.
`
`998 F.2d 1, 1 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). “Because an appeal
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 19
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 20 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(20 of 162)
`
`properly pursued from the district court’s order divests the district
`
`court of control over those aspects of the case on appeal, exclusive
`
`jurisdiction to resolve the threshold issue this case presents vests in
`
`this court, and the district court may not proceed to trial until the
`
`appeal is resolved.” Id.
`
`Thus, the Combined Notice of Appeal automatically divested
`
`the PTAB of jurisdiction over all matters related to the appeal and
`
`requires a stay of the IPR proceedings.
`
`B. The Board’s Designation of Allergan as an “Effective Patent
`Owner” Cannot be Sustained Under the Law and Cannot be
`Used to Avoid the Divestiture of Board Jurisdiction or the
`Tribe’s Immunity.
`
`The Board opined that, “[e]ven assuming arguendo that the Tribe
`
`is entitled to assert immunity,” the IPR proceedings could continue
`
`with Allergan’s participation because Allergan is the “effective”
`
`patent owner. Appx18, Appx35. This holding has no legal meaning.
`
`There is only one Patent Owner: the Tribe. Because the Tribe
`
`owns all the patents, the IPRs cannot proceed without the Tribe, as
`
`a matter of due process, because there is no congressional authority
`
`that enables an “effective” patent owner to stand in the actual patent
`
`owner’s stead. There is no unity of interests between the Tribe and
`
`Allergan as a licensee. Allergan can practice the inventions in the
`11
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 20
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 21 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(21 of 162)
`
`patents whether or not they are valid but the Tribe’s property rights
`
`and right to payments from Allergan would be extinguished if the
`
`Appellees prevail in the IPRs.2
`
` This Court has held “a patent should not be placed at risk of
`
`invalidation by the licensee without the participation of the
`
`patentee.” A123 Sys. Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213, 1221 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). The IPR process unquestionably puts the patents “at risk
`
`of invalidation.” The Board’s adjudication will determine whether
`
`the Tribe’s rights in the patents are worth $120,000,000 or nothing.
`
`That is an interest that should not be adjudicated in the Tribe’s
`
`absence.
`
`Yet the Board intends to rely on a fictional entity to continue its
`
`proceedings. No statute or regulation allows PTAB to proceed with
`
`an IPR against the “effective” patent owner in the absence of an
`
`actual patent owner immune from the action. The statue is clear that
`
`
`
`2 Significantly, the Board did not hold the Tribe and Allergan were
`“co-owners”; it held Allergan was the “effective patent owner.”
`Compare Appx35; with Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP, IPR2017-00572,
`2017 WL 2992435, at *6-7 (July 13, 2017) (dismissing Regents of
`the University of Minnesota on sovereign immunity grounds, but
`proceeding with IPR against Toyota because Toyota and
`Minnesota were “co-owners” of the patent) (“Reactive”).
`12
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 21
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 22 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(22 of 162)
`
`all rights of notice and participation as a defendant in an IPR are
`
`held by the “patent owner” only. 35 U.S.C. §§ 313, 314(c),
`
`315(a)(8)-(9). Only the petitioner and the “patent owner” can seek
`
`termination of the IPR pursuant to settlement. 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
`
`There is no entity defined as an “effective” patent owner in the
`
`statutes or regulations governing IPR. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319; and
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100-41.123. Only the petitioner and patent owner
`
`have administrative standing to participate in IPRs. See Coach Ritchie
`
`v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he starting
`
`point for a standing determination for a litigant before an
`
`administrative agency is not Article III, but is the statute that confers
`
`standing before that agency.”). As such, the Board’s finding that it
`
`may proceed with an “effective” patent owner exceeds its statutory
`
`authority.
`
`PTAB cannot simply create ad hoc rules and new forms of PTAB
`
`standing through Board decisions to facilitate what it perceives to
`
`be its mission as the gatekeeper of what is patentable (or what
`
`patents can be enforced) in the United States. Only the Director has
`
`rule-making authority under the AIA. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a); Am.
`
`Library Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 698 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (noting
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2004, p. 22
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1638 Document: 10-1 Page: 23 Filed: 03/19/2018
`
`(23 of 162)
`
`agencies have no constitutional or common law authority, only
`
`authority granted by Congress). The Supreme Court has held
`
`“[r]egardless of how serious the problem an administrative agency
`
`seeks to address, [an agency] may not exercise its authority in a
`
`manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that
`
`Congress enacted into law.” Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown &
`
`Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 125 (2000) (internal
`
`quotation omitted).
`
`Thus, no statutory basis exists for the IPRs to proceed with an
`
`“effective” owner in the Tribe’s absence.
`
`C. As Part of this Appeal, This Court Has Pendent Jurisdiction
`Over Allergan’s Appeal.
`
`The Board intends to use its holding that Allergan is the
`
`“effective” patent owner as a