`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00978
`Patent U.S. 8,603,044
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR
`JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner (“Sanofi”) respectfully submits this response to Petitioner’s
`
`(“Pfizer”) Motions for Joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22,
`
`42.122(b) of IPR Nos. 2019-00977, 2019-00978, 2019-00980, 2019-00981, 2019-
`
`00982, 2019-00987, 2019-01022, and 2019-01023 (“Pfizer IPRs”), respectively, to
`
`IPR Nos. 2018-01675, 2018-01676, 2018-01678, 2018-01679, 2019-00122, 2018-
`
`01684, 2018-01680, and 2018-01682 filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(collectively the “Mylan 044, 486, 008 and 844 IPRs”).1 Sanofi has also concurrently
`
`filed a waiver of its Preliminary Response in the above Pfizer IPRs. As set forth
`
`herein, Sanofi does not oppose joinder based on the representations made by Pfizer
`
`in its Motion for Joinder, but submits that a 1-month extension of the schedule is
`
`warranted in order to accommodate joinder of Pfizer to the Mylan 044, 486, 008 and
`
`844 IPRs.
`
`
`
`In its Motion for Joinder, Pfizer represented to the Board that (1) its petitions
`
`present the exact same grounds instituted in the Mylan 044, 486, 008, and 844 IPRs
`
`and there are no new grounds of unpatentability; (2) its arguments and
`
`accompanying expert declarations by Charles Clemens are substantively identical to
`
`the arguments and expert declarations by Karl Leinsing in the Mylan 044, 486, 008,
`
`
`1 A separate response has been filed in IPR2019-00979 (U.S. 8,679,069) which
`
`Pfizer is seeking to join with IPR2018-01670.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`and 844 IPRs; (3) it agrees to take an understudy role in these proceedings if joinder
`
`is granted, and only assume a primary role if Mylan ceases to participate in the IPRs;
`
`and (4) it will coordinate with Mylan to facilitate the elimination of repetitive briefs
`
`and testimony. Sanofi has further confirmed with Pfizer that the above
`
`representations mean that Pfizer, as an understudy to Mylan, will not seek time to
`
`take the deposition of any Sanofi declarants.
`
`
`
`While Sanofi does not oppose Pfizer’s Motion for Joinder under the
`
`conditions listed above, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c), a modest 1-month extension2 of the entire schedule is needed if joinder is
`
`granted. Specifically, an extension is necessary to allow sufficient time to cross-
`
`examine Mr. Clemens, and incorporate both his and Mr. Leinsing’s testimony into
`
`Sanofi’s Patent Owner Responses, which are all currently due on June 25, 2019.
`
`Even accepting Pfizer’s representations that the Pfizer IPRs present identical
`
`grounds and substantively identical arguments as the Mylan 044, 486, 008, and 844
`
`IPRs, and that Pfizer will take on an understudy role if the proceedings are joined,
`
`
`2 Patent Owner proposes a 1-month extension, as opposed to a 2- or 3-week
`
`extension, because of the intervening July 4th holiday and the fact that Patent Owner
`
`will also be preparing opening expert reports in the co-pending litigation between
`
`Sanofi and Mylan in the District of New Jersey currently due on July 15, 2019.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`the parties must still coordinate scheduling for both Mr. Clemens and Mr. Leinsing
`
`to be cross-examined on their respective opinions in nine IPR proceedings on five
`
`patents. Assuming Pfizer agrees to make Mr. Clemens available for deposition in
`
`accordance with the time limits that Patent Owner and Mylan have negotiated for
`
`Mr. Leinsing’s depositions (35 hours of cross examination, 20 hours of redirect
`
`examination, and 10 hours of re-cross examination), the parties will need to schedule
`
`65 hours of deposition time sufficiently in advance of Due Date 1 so that Patent
`
`Owner has a full and fair opportunity to incorporate the deposition testimony into its
`
`Patent Owner Responses.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, extending only Due Date 1, while leaving the remaining dates
`
`in the schedule in place would unnecessarily tighten the schedule. The Board’s rules
`
`specifically contemplate and allow for extensions of the schedule because of joinder.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Moreover, Patent Owner anticipates
`
`similar scheduling issues in connection with at least Due Dates 2 and 3 due to the
`
`need to schedule numerous days of cross-examination on Patent Owner’s responsive
`
`declarations and Pfizer’s and Mylan’s reply declarations. For example, extending
`
`Due Date 1 to July 30, 2019 while leaving Due Date 2 on September 17, 2019 as
`
`currently scheduled would require the parties to schedule depositions of Patent
`
`Owner’s declarant on five patents in nine IPR proceedings during a period of less
`
`than two months. Likewise, extending Due Date 2 by one month to October 22,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`2019 while leaving Due Date 3 on October 29, 2019 as currently scheduled would
`
`require Patent Owner to depose Mylan’s and Pfizer’s reply declarants and prepare
`
`sur-replies in each of the nine IPR proceedings within one week of receiving Mylan’s
`
`and Pfizer’s replies. Thus, Patent Owner’s proposed one month extension of the
`
`entire schedule is necessary in order to avoid compressing the time between
`
`substantive due dates to the prejudice of the parties. The proposed extension is set
`
`forth in the table below:
`
`
`
`Due Date 1
`- Patent Owner Response
`- Motion to Amend (“MTA”)
`
`Due Date 2:
`- Petitioner Reply to POR
`- Petitioner Opposition to MTA
`
`Due Date 3:
`- Patent Owner Sur-reply
`- Patent Owner Reply on MTA
`
`Due Date 4
`- Request for Oral Argument
`
`Due Date 5
`- Petitioner Sur-Reply on MTA
`- Motions to Exclude Evidence
`
`Due Date 6
`- Oppositions to Mot. to Exclude
`- Request for Prehearing
`Conference
`
`
`Current
`Schedule
`June 25, 2019
`
`Revised
`Schedule
`July 30, 2019
`
`September 17, 2019
`
`October 22, 2019
`
`October 29, 2019
`
`December 3, 2019
`
`November 19, 2019
`
`December 20, 2019
`
`December 6, 2019
`
`January 10, 2020
`
`December 13, 2019
`
`January 17, 2020
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Due Date 7
`- Reply on Mot. to Exclude
`
`Due Date 8
`- Oral Argument
`
`Final Written Decision
`
`
`Current
`Schedule
`December 20, 2019
`
`Revised
`Schedule
`January 24, 2020
`
`January 14-15, 2020
`
`~February 17-18,
`2020
`
`~April 2-3, 2020
`
`~May 4-5, 2020
`
`Pursuant to the representations noted above and the requested extension of the
`
`schedule, Sanofi does not oppose Pfizer’s Motion for Joinder and agrees that judicial
`
`economy will be served by joining Pfizer to the Mylan 044, 486, 008, and 844 IPRs.
`
`Patent Owner, however, submits that a 1-month extension of the schedule is
`
`warranted in order to accommodate joinder of Pfizer to the Mylan 044, 486, 008,
`
`and 844 IPRs.
`
`Dated: June 3, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser/
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`(Reg. No. 55,721)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Sudip K. Kundu (Reg. No. 74,193)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Phone: 212-310-8000
`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`sudip.kundu@weil.com
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William S. Ansley (Reg. No. 67,828)
`Matthew D. Sieger (Reg. No. 76,051)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Ste. 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`Adrian C. Percer (Reg. No. 46,986)
`Brian C. Chang (Reg. No. 74,301)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`201 Redwood Shores Parkway
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Phone: 650-802-300
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`brian.chang@weil.com
`
`Sanofi.IPR.Service@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 3, 2019, the foregoing
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO PETITONER’S MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`
`Jovial Wong
`Charles B. Klein
`Dan H. Hoang
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street NW
`Washington, D.C., 20006
`PfizerIPRs@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Ste. 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Phone: 202-682-7000
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`