`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A. AND
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`INDIVIOR UK LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454
`
`––––––––––––––
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Indivior UK Limited’s (“Indivior”) Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 12, “POPR”), Indivior explained that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “DRL”) failed to identify LTS Lohmann
`
`Therapy Systems, Corp. (“LTS”) as a real party in interest.
`
`During the conference call on April 16, 2019, the Board asked DRL’s counsel
`
`whether DRL could simply file an updated mandatory notice identifying LTS as a
`
`real party in interest. DRL’s Reply fails to respond to the Board’s inquiry, and DRL
`
`has chosen not to identify LTS as a real party in interest. Instead, DRL argues that
`
`LTS is not a real party in interest. DRL’s argument relies on a conclusory declaration
`
`consisting primarily of four brief paragraphs (Ex. 1027, ¶¶ 7–10) that fail to refute
`
`any of the seven pages of testimony by the CEO of LTS about the importance of its
`
`preexisting business relationship with DRL (POPR, Paper 12, at 42–45; Ex. 2004).
`
`Indivior submits that on the record evidence, and under Federal Circuit authority, as
`
`argued in the POPR, the Board may find LTS to be a real party in interest, and
`
`proceed accordingly.
`
`For the reasons set forth in Indivior’s POPR, the Board should deny institution
`
`of inter partes review of challenged claims 1–5 and 7–14 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,687,454.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Date: May 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By /Peter P. Chen /
`David A. Garr
` Registration No.: 74,932
`Peter P. Chen
` Registration No.: 39,631
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply was served by email, by agreement of the parties, on the following counsel of
`
`record for petitioner.
`
`
`
`Ira J. Levy (ilevy@goodwinlaw.com)
`John Coy Stull (jstull@goodwinlaw.com)
`Robert Frederickson III (rfrederickson@goodwinlaw.com)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`DG-Suboxone@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter P. Chen /
`Peter P. Chen
`Registration No.: 39,631
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`