Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 60
`Date: November 9, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2018-016791
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`___________
`
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`1 Pfizer Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00981, has been joined as
`Petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`A. REVISED MOTION TO AMEND
`1.
`Introduction
`On October 30, 2019, Patent Owner filed its Revised Contingent
`Motion to Amend (Paper 56, “Revised MTA”) in accordance with our
`Scheduling Order (Paper 15) and the March 15, 2019, Federal Register
`notice regarding a new pilot program relating to motion to amend practice at
`the Office. See 84 Fed. Reg. 9497 (Mar. 15, 2019) (“MTA Pilot”). In
`accordance with the MTA Pilot, we revise our original April 3, 2019,
`Scheduling Order to set subsequent due dates based on the date Patent
`Owner filed the Revised MTA. See MTA Pilot, Appendix 1B (Revised
`MTA Timeline).
`In particular, this Revised Scheduling Order adds DUE DATES
`RMTA1 and RMTA2 and modifies and supercedes DUE DATE 4 and
`subsequent due dates as presented in our original Scheduling Order. Further,
`this Revised Scheduling Order supplements the instructions provided in our
`original Scheduling Order, including those discussing the content of the
`briefing related to the Revised MTA. To the extent that our original
`Scheduling Order provides instructions that are not addressed in this Revised
`Scheduling Order, the original instructions remain in effect.
`2.
`Evidence and Depositions
`Generally speaking, new evidence (including declarations) may be
`submitted with every paper related to the Revised MTA, except sur-replies.
`Specifically, both Petitioner’s opposition to the Revised MTA and Patent
`Owner’s reply to that opposition may be accompanied by new evidence that
`responds to issues raised in the preliminary guidance (if provided) or in the
`corresponding Revised MTA or opposition. Petitioner’s sur-reply may not
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the
`cross-examination of any reply witness.
`Once likely declarants are known, the parties should confer as to dates
`for scheduling all depositions related to the Revised MTA after the relevant
`papers will be filed. The Board expects parties to make their declarants
`available for such depositions promptly, and to make their attorneys
`available to take and defend such depositions; any unavailability will not be
`a reason to adjust the schedule for briefing on the Revised MTA absent
`extraordinary circumstances.
`If Petitioner submits a declaration with its opposition to the Revised
`MTA, or Patent Owner submits a declaration with its reply to that
`opposition, the party should typically make such declarant available for
`deposition within 1 week after filing that declaration. As needed, the parties
`may wish to agree to shortened periods for making objections and serving
`supplemental evidence prior to a deposition. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53(d)(2),
`42.64(a) and (b). In the absence of such an agreement, the parties shall
`schedule such depositions in advance of a due date for serving supplemental
`evidence. If, after receving supplemental evidence, a party believes in good
`faith that the supplemental evidence requires further cross-examination of a
`declarant, the party should contact the Board for a conference call. Again, it
`is incumbent upon the parties to work cooperatively to schedule depositions
`of their declarants. Thus, the Board strongly encourages the parties to meet
`and confer as soon as practicable (including before anticipated declarations
`are submitted, if possible) to coordinate schedules.
`Because Patent Owner’s reply and Petitioner’s sur-reply as to the
`Revised MTA are due near or after motions to exclude are due, the parties
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`might not have an opportunity to object to evidence submitted with the reply
`or sur-reply and file a motion to exclude such evidence before the oral
`hearing. See 37 CFR 42.64. Thus, if needed, a party may seek authorization
`to file a motion to exclude reply or surreply evidence after the oral hearing
`or may make an oral motion to exclude and argue such a motion at the oral
`hearing.
`
`B. DUE DATES
`This Order sets due dates for the parties to take action by DUE DATE
`RMTA1 and after. The parties may stipulate different dates for DUE
`DATES RMTA1, RMTA2, 5, and 6 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE
`DATE 7). A notice of the stipulation, specifically identifying the changed
`due dates, must be promptly filed. The parties may not stipulate an
`extension of DUE DATES 4, 7, and 8.
`In stipulating different times, the parties should consider the effect of
`the stipulation on times to object to evidence (37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1)), to
`supplement evidence (§ 42.64(b)(2)), to conduct cross-examination
`(§ 42.53(d)(2)), and to draft papers depending on the evidence and cross-
`examination testimony.
`1. DUE DATE RMTA1
`Petitioner may file an opposition to Patent Owner’s Revised MTA.
`Petitioner’s opposition to the Revised MTA may only respond to issues
`raised in the Revised MTA or the preliminary guidance (if provided).
`2. DUE DATE 4
`Either party may file a request for oral argument (may not be extended
`by stipulation).
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`
`3. DUE DATE RMTA2
`Patent Owner may file a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the
`Revised MTA. Patent Owner’s rely to the opposition may only respond to
`issues raised in the opposition.
`4. DUE DATE 5
`Either party may file a motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(c)).
`5. DUE DATE 6
`Either party may file an opposition to a motion to exclude evidence.
`Either party may request that the Board hold a pre-hearing conference.
`6. DUE DATE 7
`Either party may file a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`Petitioner may file a sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the
`opposition to the Revised MTA. Petitioner’s sur-reply may only respond to
`issues raised in the reply to the opposition.
`7. DUE DATE 8
`The oral argument (if requested by either party) shall be held on this
`date. Approximately one month prior to the argument, the Board will issue
`an order setting the start time of the hearing and the procedures that will
`govern the parties’ arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`REVISED DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE RMTA1 ........................................................ December 10, 2019
`Petitioner’s opposition to the revised motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................... December 19, 2019
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE RMTA2 ........................................................ December 31, 2019
`Patent Owner’s reply to the opposition to the revised motion to
`amend
`
`DUE DATE 5 .......................................................................... January 9, 2020
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`DUE DATE 6 ........................................................................ January 16, 2020
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for pre-hearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ........................................................................ January 23, 2020
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to revised motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 8 ........................................................................ February 5, 2020
`Oral Argument (if requested)
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Richard Torczon
`Wesley Derryberry
`Douglas Carsten
`Jeffrey Guise
`Nicole Stafford
`Lorelei Westin
`Tasha Thomas
`Franklin Chu
`Elham Steiner
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`wderryberry@wsgr.com
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`jguise@wsgr.com
`nstafford@wsgr.com
`lwestin@wsgr.com
`tthomas@wsgr.com
`ychu@wsgr.com
`esteiner@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2018-01679
`Patent 8,992,486 B2
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Elizabeth Weiswasser
`Anish Desai
`Sudip Kundu
`Kathryn Kantha
`Adrian Percer
`Brian Chang
`William Ansley
`Matthew Seiger
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`sudip.kundu@weil.com
`kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`brian.chang@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`matthew.seiger@weil.com
`
`W. Karl Renner
`John S. Goetz
`Joshua A. Griswold
`Kenneth W. Darby
`Matthew S. Colvin
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`goetz@fr.com
`griswold@fr.com
`kdarby@fr.com
`colvin@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket