`571.272.7822
`
`
` Paper 22
`
` Entered: June 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00329
`Patent No. 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, ZHENYU YANG, and RICHARD J.
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
`Initial Conference Call
`1.
`The parties are directed to contact the Board within a month of this
`Order if there is a need to discuss proposed changes to this Scheduling Order
`or proposed motions that have not been authorized in this Order or other
`prior Order or Notice. See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`48,756, 48,765–66 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Practice Guide”) (guidance in
`preparing for the initial conference call). A request for an initial conference
`call shall include a list of proposed motions, if any, to be discussed during
`the call.
`Protective Order
`2.
`No protective order shall apply to this proceeding until the Board
`enters one. If either party files a motion to seal before entry of a protective
`order, a jointly proposed protective order shall be filed as an exhibit with the
`motion. The Board encourages the parties to adopt the Board’s default
`protective order if they conclude that a protective order is necessary. See
`Practice Guide, App’x B (Default Protective Order). If the parties choose to
`propose a protective order deviating from the default protective order, they
`must submit the proposed protective order jointly along with a marked-up
`comparison of the proposed and default protective orders showing the
`differences between the two and explain why good cause exists to deviate
`from the default protective order.
`The Board has a strong interest in the public availability of trial
`proceedings. Redactions to documents filed in this proceeding should be
`limited to the minimum amount necessary to protect confidential
`information, and the thrust of the underlying argument or evidence must be
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`clearly discernible from the redacted versions. We also advise the parties
`that information subject to a protective order may become public if
`identified in a final written decision in this proceeding, and that a motion to
`expunge the information will not necessarily prevail over the public interest
`in maintaining a complete and understandable file history. See Practice
`Guide 48,761.
`3. Discovery Disputes
`The Board encourages parties to resolve disputes relating to discovery
`on their own. To the extent that a dispute arises between the parties relating
`to discovery, the parties must meet and confer to resolve such a dispute
`before contacting the Board. If attempts to resolve the dispute fail, a party
`may request a conference call with the Board.
`4.
`Testimony
`The parties are reminded that the Testimony Guidelines appended to
`the Trial Practice Guide, Appendix D, apply to this proceeding. The Board
`may impose an appropriate sanction for failure to adhere to the Testimony
`Guidelines. 37 C.F.R. § 42.12. For example, reasonable expenses and
`attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who
`impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.
`5.
`Cross-Examination
`Except as the parties might otherwise agree, for each due date:
`Cross-examination ordinarily takes place after any supplemental
`evidence is due. 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(d)(2).
`Cross-examination ordinarily ends no later than a week before the
`filing date for any paper in which the cross-examination testimony is
`expected to be used. Id.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`6. Motion to Amend
`Patent Owner may file a motion to amend without prior authorization
`from the Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner must confer with the Board
`before filing such a motion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a). To satisfy this
`requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the Board
`no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1. See Section B below
`regarding DUE DATES.
`Patent Owner has the option to receive preliminary guidance from the
`Board on its motion to amend. See Notice Regarding a New Pilot Program
`Concerning Motion to Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings
`under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 84
`Fed. Reg. 9497 (Mar. 15, 2019) (“MTA Pilot Program Notice”). If Patent
`Owner elects to request preliminary guidance from the Board on its motion,
`it must do so in its motion to amend filed on DUE DATE 1.
`Any motion to amend and briefing related to such a motion shall
`generally follow the practices and procedures described in the MTA Pilot
`Program Notice unless otherwise ordered by the Board in this proceeding.
`The parties are further directed to the Board’s Guidance on Motions to
`Amend in view of Aqua Products (https://go.usa.gov/xU6YV), and
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., Case IPR2018-01129 (Paper 15) (PTAB
`Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential).
`As indicated in the MTA Pilot Program Notice, Patent Owner has the
`option at DUE DATE 3 to file a revised motion to amend (instead of a reply)
`after receiving petitioner’s opposition to the original motion to amend and/or
`after receiving the Board’s preliminary guidance (if requested). A revised
`motion to amend must provide amendments, arguments, and/or evidence in a
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`manner that is responsive to issues raised in the preliminary guidance and/or
`petitioner’s opposition.
`If Patent Owner files a revised motion to amend, the Board shall enter
`a revised scheduling order setting the briefing schedule for that revised
`motion and adjusting other due dates as needed. See MTA Pilot Program
`Notice, App’x B 1B.
`As also discussed in the MTA Pilot Program Notice, if the Board
`issues preliminary board guidance on the motion to amend and Patent Owner
`does not file either a reply to the opposition to the motion to amend or a
`revised motion to amend at Due Date 3, Petitioners may file a reply to the
`Board’s preliminary guidance, no later than three (3) weeks after Due Date
`3. The reply may only respond to the preliminary guidance. Patent Owner
`may file a sur-reply in response to Petitioners’ reply to the Board’s
`preliminary guidance. The sur-reply may only respond to arguments made
`in the reply and must be filed no later than three (3) weeks after Petitioners’
`reply. No new evidence may accompany the reply or the sur-reply in this
`situation.
`7. Oral Argument
`Requests for oral argument must comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(a).
`To permit the Board sufficient time to schedule the oral argument, the
`parties may not stipulate to an extension of the request for oral argument
`beyond the date set forth in the Due Date Appendix.
`Unless the Board notifies the parties otherwise, oral argument, if
`requested, will be held at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.
`The parties should meet and confer, and jointly propose the parties’
`alternative preference for the hearing location at the initial conference call, if
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`requested. Alternatively, the parties may jointly file a paper stating their
`preference for the hearing location within one month of this Order. Note
`that the Board may not be able to honor the parties’ preference of hearing
`location due to, among other things, the availability of hearing room
`resources and the needs of the panel. The Board will consider the location
`request and notify the parties accordingly if a request for change in location
`is granted.
`
`Seating in the Board’s hearing rooms may be limited, and will be
`available on a first-come, first-served basis. If either party anticipates that
`more than five (5) individuals will attend the argument on its behalf, the
`party should notify the Board as soon as possible, and no later than the
`request for oral argument. Parties should note that the earlier a request for
`accommodation is made, the more likely the Board will be able to
`accommodate additional individuals.
`B. DUE DATES
`This Order sets due dates for the parties to take action after institution
`of the proceeding. The parties may stipulate different dates for DUE
`DATES 1 through 3, 5, and 6 (earlier or later, but no later than DUE DATE
`7). In stipulating to move any due dates in the scheduling order, the parties
`must be cognizant that the Board requires four weeks after the filing of an
`opposition to the motion to amend (or the due date for the opposition, if
`none is filed) for the Board to issue its preliminary guidance, if requested by
`Patent Owner. 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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1
`Patent Owner may file—
`a. A response to the petition (37 C.F.R. § 42.120). If Patent Owner
`elects not to file a response, Patent Owner must arrange a conference call
`with the parties and the Board. Patent Owner is cautioned that any
`arguments for patentability not raised in the response may be deemed
`waived.
`b. A motion to amend the patent (37 C.F.R. § 42.121).
`2. DUE DATE 2
`Petitioners may file a reply to Patent Owner’s response.
`Petitioners may file an opposition to the motion to amend.
`3. DUE DATE 3
`Patent Owner may file a sur-reply to Petitioners’ reply.
`Patent Owner may also file either:
`a. a reply to the opposition to the motion to amend and preliminary
`board guidance (if provided); or
`b. a revised motion to amend.
`4. DUE DATE 4
`Either party may file a request for oral argument (may not be extended
`by stipulation).
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`5. DUE DATE 5
`Petitioners may file a sur-reply to Patent Owner’s reply to the
`opposition to the motion to amend.
`Either party may file a motion to exclude evidence (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(c)).
`6. 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.
` DUE DATE 7
`Either party may file a reply to an opposition to a motion to exclude
`evidence.
`8. 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.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 ........................................................................August 27, 2019
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 2 ................................................................. November 19, 2019
`
`Petitioners’ reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
`Petitioners’ opposition to motion to amend
`
`DUE DATE 3 ....................................................................December 31, 2019
`
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to reply
`Patent Owner’s reply to opposition to motion to amend
`(or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend)
`
`DUE DATE 4 ................................................................... January 21, 2020
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................... February 11, 2020
`
`Petitioners’ sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`DUE DATE 6 ................................................................... February 18, 2020
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ................................................................... February 25, 2020
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 8 .....................................................................March 3, 2020
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00329
`Patent 9,687,454 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Ira J. Levy
`John Coy Stull
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`ilevy@goodwinprocter.com
`jstull@goodwinprocter.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David A. Garr
`Peter P. Chen
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`dgarr@cov.com
`pchen@cov.com
`
`10
`
`