throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: July 20, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ST. JUDE MEDICAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01338 (Patent 6,502,575)
`Case IPR2017-01339 (Patent 6,164,283)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, JAMES A. WORTH, and
`MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Although the proceedings have not been consolidated, this Order addresses
`issues that are common to each of the above-referenced proceedings. The
`parties may use this style caption when filing a single paper in multiple
`proceedings, provided that such caption includes a footnote attesting that
`“the word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in
`the caption.”
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2015, p. 1
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01338 (Patent 6,502,575)
`IPR2017-01339 (Patent 6,164,283)
`
`
`On July 18, 2017, the Board held a conference call between Judges
`
`Scanlon, Worth, and Woods and counsel for Petitioner St. Judge Medical,
`
`LLC (“St. Jude”) and Patent Owner The Regents of the University of
`
`California (“The Regents”).
`
`The Regents requested a conference call seeking authorization to file a
`
`motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity as a state entity,
`
`and seeking to postpone the due date of the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response pending the motion to dismiss. On the conference call, The
`
`Regents argued that this case follows the example of three recent Board
`
`cases: See Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-01274 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017) (Paper 21); NeoChord Inc. v.
`
`University of Maryland, Case IPR2016-00208 (PTAB May 23, 2017) (Paper
`
`28); and Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case IPR2017-
`
`00572 (PTAB July 13, 2017) (Paper 32). The Regents further contends that
`
`it should not be required to file a Preliminary Response to the Petition if it is
`
`entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
`
`St. Jude states that it does not object to the granting of authorization
`
`for The Regents to file a motion to dismiss but indicates that St. Jude would
`
`file an opposition thereto on the merits. St. Jude indicates that it plans to
`
`argue that The Regents has waived any Eleventh Amendment immunity,
`
`e.g., in a related district court proceeding. St. Jude further opposes
`
`postponing the due date of the Patent Owner Preliminary Response because
`
`it would prefer that this proceeding finish prior to trial in the district court
`
`proceeding, which is currently scheduled for February 2019, according to St.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2015, p. 2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01338 (Patent 6,502,575)
`IPR2017-01339 (Patent 6,164,283)
`
`Jude.2 St. Jude also suggested that The Regents was aware of the Eleventh
`
`Amendment issue prior to contacting the Board and may have delayed
`
`before seeking to stay the schedule.
`
`Under the current schedule the Patent Owner Preliminary Response is
`
`due August 16, 2017, and if an inter partes review were instituted, the
`
`Board’s final written decision would have a statutory due date of no later
`
`than November 16, 2018.
`
`After considering the circumstances of this case, we find it to be in the
`
`interest of justice to obtain briefing on this issue, and we authorize The
`
`Regents to file a motion to dismiss. We further postpone the due date for the
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response for two months.
`
`Accordingly, having heard from the parties, we authorize The Regents
`
`to file its motion by July 25, 2017. The Regents’s brief is limited to fifteen
`
`(15) pages. In its briefing, The Regents should bear in mind the arguments
`
`made by St. Jude during the teleconference.
`
`St. Jude may file an opposition, also limited to fifteen (15) pages, by
`
`August 1, 2017. The Regents may further file a reply to St. Jude’s
`
`opposition by August 8, 2017, limited to ten (10) pages.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that The Regents of the University of California is
`
`authorized to file, no later than July 25, 2017, a Motion to Dismiss Based on
`
`Sovereign Immunity, limited to fifteen (15) pages;
`
`
`2 In its Mandatory Notice, Patent Owner identifies, inter alia, the following
`case as related: The Regents of the University of California v. St. Jude
`Medical, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-06210 (N.D. Cal.). Paper 4, 2 (IPR2017-
`01338).
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2015, p. 3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01338 (Patent 6,502,575)
`IPR2017-01339 (Patent 6,164,283)
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that St. Jude may file, no later than August 1,
`
`2017, an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion, limited to fifteen (15) pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that The Regents of the University of
`
`California may file, no later than August 8, 2017, a Reply to Petitioner’s
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion, limited to ten (10) pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`in each of IPR2017-01338 and IPR2017-01339 shall be due on October 16,
`
`2017; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other filings are authorized at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew Smith
`smith@turnerboyd.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`Kainoa Asuega
`kasuega@crowell.com
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2015, p. 4
`
`

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