throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2018-01676
`U.S. Patent No. 8,603,044
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §§ 314(A) AND 324(A) TO DENY INSTITUTION .......................... 4 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Procedural Background ......................................................................... 5 
`
`The Board Has Discretion to Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 314(a) and 324(a) ............................................................................. 8 
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-
`00752 ..................................................................................................... 9 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`The parties are engaged in district court litigation on the
`same patent ................................................................................ 10 
`
`Petitioner relies on the same prior art in the Petition as in
`the District Court case ............................................................... 11 
`
`Trial in the District Court case will conclude before the
`IPR ............................................................................................. 12 
`
`Instituting the IPR permits the Petitioner a tactical
`advantage .................................................................................. 12 
`
`D.  General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357 ................................................................................... 13 
`
`1. 
`
`General Plastic Factors 1, 2, 4, and 5: Whether the same
`petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same
`claims of the same patent; whether at the time of filing of
`the first petition the petitioner knew of the prior art
`asserted in the second petition or should have known of it;
`the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned of the prior art asserted in the second
`petition and the filing of the second petition; whether the
`petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time
`
`i
`
`

`

`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed
`to the same claims of the same patent ....................................... 14 
`
`General Plastic Factor 3: whether at the time of filing of
`the second petition the petitioner already received the
`patent owner’s preliminary response to the first petition or
`received the Board’s decision on whether to institute
`review in the first petition ......................................................... 16 
`
`General Plastic Factors 6 and 7: the finite resources of the
`Board; and the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)
`to issue a final determination not later than 1 year after the
`date on which the Director notices institution of review .......... 17 
`
`III.  THE 044 PATENT ........................................................................................ 18 
`
`IV.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 23 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“main housing” .................................................................................... 23 
`
`“tubular clutch” and “clicker” ............................................................. 26 
`
`V. 
`
`TO DEMONSTRATE A
`FAILED
`PETITIONER HAS
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON GROUNDS 1
`AND 2 ............................................................................................................ 27 
`
`A.  Ground 1 Should Be Denied Because Steenfeldt-Jensen Does
`Not Render Obvious the Challenged Claims ...................................... 27 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,235,004 (“Steenfeldt-
`Jensen”) (Ex. 1014) ................................................................... 27 
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen Does Not Teach or Render Obvious a
`“drive sleeve comprising an internal threading … adapted
`to engage an external thread of said piston rod” ....................... 32 
`
`a) 
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen’s Disclosure on Switching the
`Piston Rod Guide and Nut Element Is Made for a
`Different Embodiment That Is Not the Basis for the
`Ground ............................................................................ 34 
`
`ii
`
`

`

`b) 
`
`c) 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Make
`Petitioner’s Proposed Modification to the Fifth
`Embodiment Because the Fifth Embodiment Does
`Not Suffer the Same Drawbacks as the First
`Embodiment .................................................................... 36 
`
`The Petitioner’s Modification to Switch the Piston
`Rod Guide and Nut Element
`to
`the Fifth
`Embodiment Results in an Inferior Pen Injector ............ 42 
`
`B. 
`
`Ground 2 Should Be Denied Because Møller, Alone or in
`Combination with Steenfeldt-Jensen, Does Not Render Obvious
`the Challenged Claims ........................................................................ 45 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Overview of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2002/0052578 (“Møller”) ......................................................... 46 
`
`The Combination of Møller and Steenfeldt-Jensen Does
`Not Teach or Render Obvious “a drive sleeve extending
`along a portion of said piston rod” ............................................ 48 
`
`a) 
`
`b) 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Considered Connection
`Bars 12 and Nut 13 Functionally and Structurally
`Equivalent to Connection Element 112 and Nut 113
` ........................................................................................ 51 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Expected Connection
`Bars 12 with Nut 13 Could Be Formed as a Tubular
`Structure That Encompasses Piston Rod 4 Without
`Affecting the Device’s Operation ................................... 55 
`
`3. 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Combine
`the Teachings of Møller and Steenfeldt-Jensen as
`Petitioner Contends ................................................................... 56 
`
`a)  Møller Teaches Away From Steenfeldt-Jensen’s
`Externally-Grooved Dose Scale Drum ........................... 57 
`
`b) 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Make
`the Relied-Upon Combination Due to a Purported
`Benefit Alleged by Petitioner ......................................... 58 
`iii
`
`

`

`4. 
`
`The Combination of Møller and Steenfeldt-Jensen Does
`Not Teach or Render Obvious “said dose dial sleeve
`comprising a helical groove configured to engage a
`threading provided by said main housing, said helical
`groove provided along an outer surface of said dose dial
`sleeve” ....................................................................................... 63 
`
`VI.  THE PETITION FAILS TO PUT PATENT OWNER ON NOTICE OF
`HOW THE CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN THE GROUNDS
`AS REQUIRED BY 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B) ................................................. 67 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 70 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases 
`Gen. Electric Co. v. Vestas Wind Systems A/S,
`IPR2018-00928, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2018) .............................................. 68
`Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) .................................... passim
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ....................................................................... 33, 45
`Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., lIPR2018-00277,
`Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 8, 2018) .......................................................................... 5
`Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 58
`Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`686 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................... 24, 26
`NetApp, Inc. v. Realtime Data LLC,
`IPR2017-01195, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2017) ...................................... 14, 16
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) .................................... passim
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 24
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 10, 24
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
`600 F. App’x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................... 33, 45
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 27
`Statutes and Rules 
`21 C.F.R. § 314.50, et seq. .....................................................................................6, 7
`v
`
`

`

`21 C.F.R. § 314.52 ..................................................................................................... 6
`21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2) & 3 ......................................................................................... 6
`21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(3)(b)(ii) ....................................................................................... 7
`21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(3)(C) ........................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 11
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .............................................................................................. 7, 15
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................. 17
`35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a) ....................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. §§ 316(b) and 326(b) ................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ...................................................................................... passim
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Press Release, “Mylan Enhances Partnership with Biocon through
`Strategic Collaboration for Insulin Products”, Feb. 13, 2013 (PR
`Newswire), available at http://newsroom.mylan.com/press-
`releases?item=122834
`Press Release, “Mylan Commences Phase III Clinical Trials for its
`Generic Version of Advair Diskus® and Insulin Analog to Lantus®”,
`Sept. 16, 2014 (PR Newswire), available at
`http://newsroom.mylan.com/press-releases?item=123251
`Press Release, “Mylan and Biocon Present Clinical Data on Insulin
`Glargine at the American Diabetes Association’s 77th Scientific
`Sessions”, June 10, 2017 (PR Newswire), available at
`http://newsroom.mylan.com/2017-06-10-Mylan-and-Biocon-
`Present-Clinical-Data-on-Insulin-Glargine-at-the-American-
`Diabetes-Associations-77th-Scientific-Sessions
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC,
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, C.A.
`No. 1-14-cv-00113-RGA (D. Del), Dkt. No. 1
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC,
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie
`v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., C.A. No. 1-16-cv-00812-RGA (D.
`Del), Dkt. No. 1
`Stipulation and Proposed Order, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan,
`N.V., Civil Action No. 17-9105-SRC-SLW (D.N.J. Feb 5, 2018),
`Dkt. No. 45
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.
`v. Mylan N.V. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.
`Oct. 24, 2017), Dkt. No. 1
`Excerpts from Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions, dated Jan. 25,
`2018, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V. et al., Case No.
`2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`Excerpts from Mylan GMBH’s Amended Invalidity Contentions,
`dated April 25, 2018, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V.
`et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`Excerpts from Mylan GMBH’s Exhibit C to Amended Invalidity
`Contentions, dated April 25, 2018, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Mylan N.V. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`2018
`
`Aug. 13, 2018 Service of Sanofi’s Responses to Mylan’s Amended
`Contentions, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`MP4 file of Sanofi’s Patented Pen animation
`Excerpt from Defendants’ opening claim construction brief, dated
`October 12, 2018, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V. et
`al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`Memorandum Opinion, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Merck Sharp &
`Corp., Case No. 16-cv-812-RGA (D. Del.), Dkt. No. 192
`International Patent WO 99/3855
`Excerpt from Joint claim construction statement, Ex. A, dated
`October 8, 2018, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V. et
`al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.)
`Animation depicting Møller’s first embodiment
`Animation depicting Møller’s second embodiment
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Board should decline to institute a trial on the Petition. The Petition
`
`asserts the same invalidity grounds that will be decided in a co-pending litigation in
`
`district court before any final written decision is due here, fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success that at least one of the challenged claims is
`
`unpatentable, and fails to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`First, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a), because Petitioner raises the same invalidity grounds
`
`here as it did nearly a year ago—and continues to assert—in a co-pending district
`
`court case that is on schedule for trial before the end of this year. Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
`
`LLC v. Mylan N.V. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-09105-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.) (“District
`
`Court case”). The 044 Patent has been listed in the FDA’s Orange Book as covering
`
`Patent Owner’s insulin glargine prefilled pen drug product since 2014 and Petitioner
`
`identified the 044 Patent in its Paragraph IV notice served well over a year prior to
`
`filing this Petition. Moreover, and Patent Owner had previously asserted the 044
`
`Patent in related lawsuits against Eli Lilly and Merck. Petitioner has thus long had
`
`notice of the 044 Patent but waited until the eve of the one-year statutory deadline
`
`to file the instant Petition. Because of Petitioner’s own delay, the identical invalidity
`
`grounds raised in this Petition will tried in the co-pending District Court case before
`
`a final written decision on this Petition will be due.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In these circumstances, instituting an IPR trial would not serve as a “quick
`
`and cost effective alternative[] to litigation,” but would rather subject Petitioner to
`
`defending the same arguments in different forums and be highly inefficient. H.R.
`
`Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011). See also NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
`
`Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 19-20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (“NHK Spring”).
`
`The Board should not permit repeated and duplicative attacks on the same patent
`
`claims using the same invalidity grounds that waste the Board’s and the parties’
`
`resources. Thus, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under §§
`
`314(a) and 324(a).
`
`Second, the Petition should be denied because it fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success that at least one claim is unpatentable. In Ground
`
`1, Petitioner concedes that Steenfeldt-Jensen fails to disclose a drive sleeve that
`
`engages with a piston rod via a threaded connection as required by the challenged
`
`claims. Petitioner and its expert argue obviousness but a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) would not have been motivated to make the Petition’s proposed
`
`modification. The proposed modification would result in an inferior (if not
`
`inoperable) device without any beneficial tradeoff.
`
`In Ground 2, Petitioner relies on the combination of Steenfeldt-Jensen and
`
`Møller. A POSA, however, would not have been motivated to combine Steenfeldt-
`
`Jensen’s scale drum with Møller’s injection pen, because Møller disparages and
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`rejects Steenfeldt-Jensen’s scale drum. Moreover, the Petition does not apply the
`
`correct construction for “main housing.” When properly construed, Møller fails to
`
`disclose or render obvious a “dose dial sleeve … configured to engage a threading
`
`provided by said main housing” as required by claim 11. Møller also fails to teach
`
`or render obvious a “drive sleeve” as required by claim 11 of the 044 Patent.
`
`Finally, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) requires that a petition identify “[h]ow the
`
`challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable”
`
`so as to put a patent owner sufficiently on notice of the alleged grounds. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b)(3)-(4). See also Section VI, infra (discussing the purpose of the rule
`
`from its rulemaking history). The Petition runs afoul of these requirements in two
`
`ways. First, the Petition fails to clearly identify what constructions it relies upon.
`
`The Petition proffers the “plain and ordinary meaning” generally for all claim terms
`
`yet does not articulate a plain and ordinary meaning for those terms. Leading to
`
`further confusion, Petitioner identifies the claim constructions proposed by Patent
`
`Owner in the co-pending District Court case, but does not state whether these are the
`
`plain and ordinary meanings applied in the Petition.1 Second, where the Petition
`
`
`1 In the District Court case Petitioner articulates constructions for various claim
`
`terms, but Petitioner does not identify whether it is applying those constructions as
`
`the plain and ordinary meaning in this Petition.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`does clearly proffer claim constructions (for what it incorrectly contends are means-
`
`plus-function limitations), the Petition does not use these constructions consistently
`
`in its grounds and thus does not explain how the claims, as construed, are
`
`unpatentable. For example, the Petition construes “clicker” as a means-plus-function
`
`term and identifies “component 50” in Figures 6-8 as the corresponding structure.
`
`In contrast, when discussing the prior art, the Petition identifies a “flexible arm 52”
`
`and “splines 42,” or “saw teeth” 55 and 66 as the corresponding clicker structure.
`
`See, e.g., Petition at 43. This internal inconsistency fails to put Patent Owner on
`
`notice for “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed
`
`claim is unpatentable ….” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)-(4).
`
`For these reasons, as detailed further below, Patent Owner respectfully
`
`requests that the Board deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`II. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 35
`U.S.C. §§ 314(A) AND 324(A) TO DENY INSTITUTION
`The Board should exercise its discretion and deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`§§ 314(a) and 324(a). It would waste the Board’s finite resources and is
`
`fundamentally unfair and inefficient to require Patent Owner to expend resources on
`
`an IPR trial where the final written decision will issue only after the conclusion and
`
`resolution of the identical validity challenge in the related District Court case.
`
`The efficient resolution of patent challenges is foundational to the IPR system
`
`and the AIA generally. To this end, it is “an objective of the AIA . . . to provide an
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.” Gen. Plastic Indus. Co.
`
`v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16–17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (precedential); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`
`lIPR2018-00277, Paper 10 at 7 (P.T.A.B. June 8, 2018) (explaining that “AIA
`
`proceedings ‘are not to be used as tools for harassment….Doing so would frustrate
`
`the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost effective alternatives to
`
`litigation’” (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011))). This purpose is
`
`frustrated when, as here, a party delays filing a petition until such time that the IPR,
`
`if instituted, would result in a final written decision only after the same validity
`
`issues have been resolved by a district court. See NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752,
`
`Paper 8.
`
`The Board has also recognized “the potential for abuse of the review process
`
`by repeated attacks on patents” in deciding to exercise its discretion under §§ 314(a)
`
`and 324(a). See Gen. Plastic, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 16-17. Here, Petitioner
`
`has filed multiple petitions on the 044 Patent not as “an effective and efficient
`
`alternative to district court litigation,” id., but instead in an inefficient and
`
`intentionally staggered attempt to take the same shot at the same patent in different
`
`forums.
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner and
`
`its
`
`identified real-party-in-interest Biocon entered a
`
`collaboration to develop and commercialize a follow-on version of insulin glargine
`
`in 2013 (Ex. 2001), commenced clinical trials by 2014 (Ex. 2002), and announced
`
`the results of those trials by June 10, 2017 (Ex. 2003). By the time of the June 2017
`
`press release, Patent Owner had already asserted the 044 Patent against two other
`
`competitors seeking approval of follow-on glargine products. See Ex. 2004 at 6-7,
`
`Ex. 2005 at 1.
`
`Relatedly, the publication of the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with
`
`Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the “Orange Book”) has listed the 044 Patent
`
`since 2014 as covering Patent Owner’s Lantus® SoloSTAR® product (i.e., Sanofi’s
`
`insulin glargine formulation and the injector pen device for administering the
`
`formulation). Thus, Petitioner was long on notice of the 044 Patent, and that the
`
`Patent Owner was actively enforcing it against competitors.
`
`
`
`On April 27, 2017, Petitioner submitted its application to market its follow-
`
`on insulin glargine product to the FDA. Thereafter, as required by the rules
`
`governing follow-on drug applications, 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(2) & 3; 21 C.F.R. §§
`
`314.50(i) & 314.52, Petitioner sent Patent Owner a letter dated September 15, 2017
`
`that noticed the submission of Petitioner’s FDA application and contained so-called
`
`“Paragraph IV” certification alleging that Petitioner’s proposed glargine product
`
`would not infringe the claims of the 044 Patent, which Petitioner alleged to be
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`amongst a list of patents that are not “not valid, unenforceable, and/or will not be
`
`infringed.” See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(3)(b)(ii); 21 C.F.R. § 314.50(i)(1)(i)(A)(4).
`
`
`
`On October 24, 2017 Patent Owner filed a patent infringement case against
`
`Petitioner asserting the 044 Patent, among others. As part of that patent infringement
`
`case, Petitioner served its invalidity contentions on Patent Owner on January 25,
`
`2018 that included the exact same prior art advanced in the Petition and amended
`
`those contentions on April 25, 2018 to include the exact same prior art grounds now
`
`advanced in the Petition—i.e., obviousness of claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the
`
`044 Patent over Steenfeldt-Jensen and also over Møller in combination with
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen. See Section II.C.2, infra.
`
`
`
`On August 12, 2018 (approximately a month before filing the Petition),
`
`Petitioner received and reviewed Patent Owner’s detailed validity contentions
`
`responding to those grounds. Despite long having notice of the 044 Patent and its
`
`assertion against Petitioner, it was not until September 10, 2018—the eve of the one-
`
`year statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)—that Petitioner filed this Petition, along
`
`with eight others, asserting substantially the same invalidity grounds it alleged in the
`
`District Court case. See IPR2018-01670, IPR2018-01675, IPR2018-01678,
`
`IPR2018-01679, IPR2018-01680, IPR2018-01682, IPR2018-01696, IPR2019-
`
`00122.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`In the meantime, the parties have been actively litigating the District Court
`
`case. A Markman hearing is likely to occur in early February 2019, and the parties
`
`have jointly requested a trial for October 2019 in order to achieve resolution of the
`
`issues before the end of the FDA’s 30-month stay of regulatory approval of
`
`Petitioner’s FDA application (March 18, 2020).2 See Ex. 2006, ¶ 8 (“The parties
`
`hereby agree to jointly request the Court to schedule trial in the Action in October
`
`2019”). Accordingly, resolution of the District Court case should occur well before
`
`the April 2020 due date for a final written decision in this IPR if a trial were to be
`
`instituted.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Has Discretion to Deny Institution Under 35 U.S.C. §§
`314(a) and 324(a)
`The Board has discretion under §§ 314(a) and 324(a) to deny institution. See
`
`
`
`August 2018 Update to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide at 8 (Aug. 13, 2018)
`
`(“August 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update”). This “discretion is informed by 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 316(b) and 326(b), which require the Director to ‘consider the effect of
`
`any such regulation [under this section] on the economy, the integrity of the patent
`
`
`2 As part of the Hatch-Waxman process, Patent Owner’s District Court case against
`
`Petitioner triggered a 30-month period during which the FDA will not approve
`
`Petitioner’s follow-on application without resolution of the District Court case. See
`
`21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(3)(C).
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to
`
`timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.’” Id. at 9. In discussing
`
`this discretion, the August 2018 Trial Practice Guide Update recognizes that the
`
`“AIA was ‘designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that
`
`will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation
`
`costs.’” Id. (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 40 (2001), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67,
`
`69). Indeed, the Board has exercised its discretion to deny institution under §§
`
`314(a) and 324(a) on facts substantially similar to those before this Board. See NHK
`
`Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8.
`
`C. NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752
`In NHK Spring, like the instant case, (1) the parties were engaged in advanced
`
`
`
`district court litigation on the same patent, (2) the petitioner was relying on the same
`
`prior art in the petition as in the litigation, and (3) the district court trial would
`
`conclude before the IPR. See NHK Spring, IPR2018-00752, Paper 8. The Board
`
`denied institution, reasoning that “instituting a trial under the facts and
`
`circumstances here would be an inefficient use of Board resources,” and “would not
`
`be consistent with ‘an objective of the AIA . . . to provide an effective and efficient
`
`alternative to district court litigation.’” Id. at 20.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Given the near identical circumstances3 with NHK Spring, the Board should
`
`use its discretion to reach the same outcome here: it would be an inefficient use of
`
`Board resources to institute this IPR.
`
`1.
`
`The parties are engaged in district court litigation on the
`same patent
`In NHK Spring, the challenged patent was being asserted by the patent owner
`
`
`
`against the petitioner in a co-pending District Court case. NHK Spring, IPR2018-
`
`00752, Paper 8 at 19. Here, too, the 044 Patent is asserted by Patent Owner against
`
`Petitioner in Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Mylan N.V. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-
`
`09105-SRC-CLW, filed October 24, 2017. See Ex. 2007.
`
`
`3 Because the NHK Spring patent was expired, both the Board and District Court
`
`applied the Phillips standard for claim construction. Here, however, the 044 Patent
`
`is not expired and thus the Board will apply the BRI standard and the District Court
`
`will apply the Phillips standard for claim construction. This is a distinction without
`
`a difference, however, because Petitioner does not contend that the grounds rely on
`
`any constructions that would be different under the two standards. Indeed, the
`
`Petition cites Phillips to support its constructions. Petition at 14.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner relies on the same prior art in the Petition as in the
`District Court case
`In support of its decision to deny institution under § 314(a), the Board in NHK
`
`Spring noted that “Petitioner relies on the same prior art … and arguments in its
`
`district court invalidity contentions as asserted in the Petition.” NHK Spring, Paper
`
`8 at 19. Here, Petitioner asserts that claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are obvious over
`
`Steenfeldt-Jensen and also over the combination of Møller and Steenfeldt-Jensen.
`
`Petition at 3. In the co-pending District Court case, Petitioner served invalidity
`
`contentions alleging that Steenfeldt-Jensen alone renders these claims obvious, as
`
`does the combination of Møller and Steenfeldt-Jensen. See Ex. 2008 at 202; Ex. 2009
`
`at 268-269, Ex. 2010 at 10-12, 21, 27, 34-35, 39, 62-63, 65-67, 80-81, 95-97, 111-
`
`113, 115-116, 132-136, 154-156, 164-166, 176-177, 188-190, 194-195, 198-199,
`
`221-223, 226 (an invalidity chart applying Steenfeldt-Jensen’s and Møller’s
`
`disclosures against claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19). Thus, the same situation exists
`
`here as in NHK – the same prior art combinations used in the IPR are used in the
`
`litigation between the parties.4 See NHK Spring, Paper 8 at19-20.
`
`
`4 Moreover, Petitioner has filed eight other petitions that assert substantially the
`
`same arguments being litigated in the District Court case. See IPR2018-01670,
`
`IPR2018-01696, IPR2018-01675, IPR2018-01678, IPR2018-01680, IPR2018-
`
`01679, IPR2018-01682, IPR2019-00122.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`3.
`Trial in the District Court case will conclude before the IPR
`When the Board in NHK Spring issued its decision, the district court
`
`proceeding was “nearing its final stages” with trial a little over six months away. Id.
`
`at 1 (decision entered September 12, 2018), 20 (noting a March 25, 2019 trial date).
`
`The Board noted that the IPR trial “on the same asserted prior art will not conclude
`
`until September 2019,” approximately six months after the March 2019 trial date.
`
`Id. at 20.
`
`
`
`The circumstances here are no different. In the co-pending District Court case,
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner have jointly requested a trial in October 2019. And even
`
`if a trial does not take place in October 2019, the District Court is keenly aware that
`
`the 30-month stay of regulatory approval of Petitioner’s FDA application expires on
`
`March 18, 2020, and has indicated that it will decide the issue of validity in advance
`
`of that date. A Final Written Decision in an IPR trial on the same prior art and
`
`arguments would not issue until April 2020, six months after the likely date of the
`
`District Court case trial. Thus, as the Board found in NHK Spring, instituting an IPR
`
`trial “ultimately would be inefficient.” NHK Spring, Paper 8 at 19-20.
`
`4.
`
`Instituting the IPR permits the Petitioner a tactical
`advantage
`In NHK Spring, the patent owner argued that the petitioner waiting to file the
`
`
`
`petition until shortly before the expiration of the one-year deadline is a factor
`
`favoring denial of institution. The Board disagreed, but stated that “the Patent
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Owner does not apprise us of any tactical advantage, or opportunity for tactical
`
`advantage, that the Petitioner gained by waiting to file the Petition.” NHK Spring,
`
`Paper 8 at 19. In contrast, here Petitioner waited to file the Petition until after it had
`
`obtained Patent Owner’s detailed validity positions in response to Petitioner’s
`
`invalidity contentions (as explained in Section II.A. and II.C.2), and is attempting to
`
`get the proverbial two bites at the apple. Even if the 044 Patent is found valid and
`
`infringed at trial in the District Court case, Patent Owner will be unfairly required to
`
`defend the validity of the 044 Patent in an IPR proceeding before the Board on the
`
`same prior art and arguments.
`
`
`
`This gamesmanship is highly prejudicial to Patent Owner, and antithetical to
`
`the purpose of the statute, which is to provide a “quick and cost effective alternatives
`
`to litigation”.

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