throbber
Paper 12
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Date: September 1, 2020
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`TIMOTHY G. MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MAJORS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (“Petitioner”), 1 on June 12, 2020,
`filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 1–4, 17, 19, and 21–23 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’708 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”
`or “Petition”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 2, “Mot.” or
`“Motion”) with Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme
`Corp., IPR2020-00040, in which Mylan is challenging the patentability of
`those same claims of the ’708 patent (“Mylan IPR”). We instituted inter
`partes review of the Mylan IPR on May 12, 2020. Mylan IPR, Paper 21.
`On July 10, 2020, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Patent Owner” or
`“Merck”) filed an Opposition (“Opp.” or “Opposition”) to Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder. Paper 7. Petitioner filed a Reply in support of the
`Motion. Paper 9 (“Mot. Reply”). And, on August 14, 2020, Patent Owner
`filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 11 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify several proceedings where the ’708 patent is
`being asserted, including: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Mylan Pharm.
`Inc. et al., 1:19:-cv-00101 (N.D. W. Va); Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.
`Mylan Pharm. Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-01489 (D. Del.); Merck Sharp & Dohme
`Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., 1:19-cv-00319 (D. Del); Merck
`Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1:19-cv-00317 (D.
`Del.), Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
`
`1 Petitioner identifies Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun
`Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. as the real parties-in-interest. Pet. 6.
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`1:19-cv-00318 (D. Del.); and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s
`Laboratories Ltd., 1:20-cv-00847 (D. Del.). Pet. 6–7 (listing cases); Paper
`5, 2–3 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices). As Merck has explained, its
`lawsuits against several generic drug companies related to the ’708 patent,
`including suits identified above, have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
`in a multidistrict litigation. See Mylan IPR, Paper 10, 10 (identifying In re
`Sitagliptin Phosphate (’708 & ’921) Patent Litig. C.A. No. 19-md-2902-
`RGA (D. Del.)).
`In addition to the Mylan IPR, Patent Owner identifies the following
`related administrative matters pending before the Patent Office: Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., IPR2020-
`01045; and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`IPR2020-01060. Paper 5, 3. 2
`
`
`2 Petitioners in these related matters filed their petitions at or about the same
`time as the present Petition. Those other petitioners similarly move for
`joinder with the Mylan IPR. See, e.g., IPR2020-1060, Paper 3.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`WO ’4984
`
`B. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts six grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 12–13) as set
`forth in the table below:
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`1–3, 17, 19, 21–23
`1023
`
`102
`
`1–3, 17, 19, 21–23
`
`the ’871 patent5
`
`3, 17, 19, 21–23
`
`1–3, 17, 19, 21–23
`
`4
`
`4
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`103
`
`WO ’498
`
`WO ’498, Bastin6
`
`WO ’498, Bastin, Brittain7
`
`WO ’498, Brittain
`
`
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the
`challenged claims of the ’708 patent have an effective filing date before the
`effective date of the applicable AIA amendments, we refer to the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 in this Decision.
`4 Edmondson et al., WO 03/004498 A1, published Jan. 16, 2003 (Ex. 1004,
`“WO ’498”). WO ’498 published from Application No. PCT/US02/21349,
`filed July 5, 2002, which claims priority to US Provisional Application No.
`60/303,474, filed July 6, 2001 (Ex. 1012).
`5 Edmondson et al., US 6,699,871 B2, issued Mar. 2, 2004 (Ex. 1007, “the
`’871 patent”). The ’871 patent issued from an application filed July 5, 2002,
`and claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 60/303,474, filed July
`6, 2001 (Ex. 1012).
`6 Richard J. Bastin et al., Salt Selection and Optimisation Procedures for
`Pharmaceutical New Chemical Entities, 4 ORGANIC PROCESS RESEARCH &
`DEVELOPMENT 427–435, 2000 (Ex. 1006, “Bastin”).
`7 Polymorphism in Pharmaceutical Solids, Harry G. Brittain ed., 1999
`(Ex. 1005, “Brittain”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`Petitioner also cites the declaration of Dr. Steven Baldwin (Ex. 1002),
`but has indicated that it will withdraw Dr. Baldwin’s declaration, and will
`rely instead on the testimony of Mylan’s declarant, Dr. Mukund Chorghade,
`in the Mylan IPR if permitted. Mot. 4.
`
`II.
`
`INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Petition advances the same grounds of unpatentability that are
`included in the instituted Mylan IPR. Compare Pet. 13–71, with Mylan IPR,
`Paper 1, 12–69; see also Mylan IPR, Paper 21, 4–5, 64 (Institution
`Decision). Indeed, Petitioner “asserts that the same claims are invalid based
`on substantially the same arguments presented in the Mylan IPR,” and that
`“Petitioner’s declaration is substantively identical to the declaration in the
`Mylan IPR.” Mot. 1; see also id. at 4 (“Along with its Motion for Joinder,
`Petitioner here has simultaneously filed a ‘me too’ Petition” for IPR based
`on the “same reasons set forth in the Mylan IPR.”). We conclude the
`Petition is properly characterized as a “me-too” challenge relative to the
`petition in the Mylan IPR.
`Merck filed a Preliminary Response, agreeing that “[t]he Petition at
`issue is a ‘Me-Too’ petition,” that was filed with a timely motion for joinder.
`Prelim. Resp. 1.8 Merck notes the preliminary arguments it raised in
`response to the petition in the Mylan IPR. Id. But, recognizing that the
`Board granted institution in the Mylan IPR notwithstanding those
`
`
`8 Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not include page numbers, but
`we treat as though it includes pages 1–4, with page 1 beginning after the
`caption page.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`arguments, Merck, “[f]or efficiency and to conserve judicial resources,”
`does not specifically raise or restate those arguments at this time. Id. at 2–3
`(reserving its rights to make argument and address the grounds further in any
`instituted and/or joined trial proceeding).
`We grant joinder as explained below, and because we determined that
`the preliminary arguments raised by Patent Owner in the Mylan IPR were
`insufficient to avoid institution in that case, we likewise grant institution
`here. 9 For the reasons set forth in our Institution Decision in the Mylan IPR,
`we determine that Petitioner has met its burden to demonstrate a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged
`claims are unpatentable. See generally Mylan IPR, Paper 21. Accordingly,
`we institute inter partes review on the grounds raised by Petitioner here,
`which are the same as in the instituted Mylan IPR.
`
`III. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`As discussed above, we instituted trial in the Mylan IPR on May 12,
`2020. Mylan IPR, Paper 21. Petitioner filed its Motion for Joinder on June
`12, 2020, and the motion is, therefore, timely. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (2020)
`(requiring any joinder motion be filed “no later than one month after the
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested”).
`
`
`9 Because we grant joinder, we do not reach Patent Owner’s alternative
`argument that the Petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Prelim.
`Resp. 3; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“The time period set forth in § 42.101(b)
`[related to the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)] shall not apply
`when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”); see also
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`The statutory provision governing joinder in inter partes review
`proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads:
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311
`that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review under section 314.
`Furthermore, a motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why
`joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability
`asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have
`on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how
`briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview
`LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). Petitioner
`addresses these considerations in its Motion, and we generally agree with
`Petitioner’s assertions in favor of joinder. Mot. 4–9. We discuss further
`below.
`The Petition raises the same unpatentability grounds on which we
`instituted review in the Mylan IPR, and no others. Mot. 4 (“The grounds
`proposed in the present Petition are therefore the same grounds of
`unpatentability on which the Board instituted the Mylan IPR, and the
`Petition does not contain any additional arguments or evidence (except for
`reliance on a different expert [offering identical opinions], as noted above.”).
`Patent Owner provides no persuasive argument to the contrary. Thus, this
`inter partes review does not present any ground not already at issue in the
`Mylan IPR.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`Petitioner’s challenge to the ’708 patent is “substantively identical” to
`the challenge presented in the Mylan IPR. Mot. 1. Moreover, Petitioner
`persuades us that it has agreed to play the role of a true and silent
`“understudy” to Mylan in the joined proceeding—agreeing to conditions like
`those regularly cited in other Board cases where joinder of a me-too petition
`was granted. Mot. 4, 6–7 (agreeing, for example, to rely on and be bound by
`the testimony of Mylan’s expert); see also Mot. Reply 2–3 (identifying
`conditions that the parties have agreed to with respect to Petitioner’s role in
`the joined proceeding). Petitioner’s limited role in the joined proceeding
`helps to streamline matters and mitigate inefficiencies so that the Board can
`focus on the merits in reaching a final written decision that addresses the
`same patentability challenges raised here and in the Mylan IPR. These
`considerations favor joinder.
`Patent Owner initially opposed joinder, arguing that Petitioner’s role
`in the proceeding was uncertain and that Petitioner had not agreed to play
`the role of a true understudy. Opp. 11–15. Later, however, the parties
`apparently reached agreement on the conditions of Petitioner’s participation
`if joined as a party. See Mot. Reply 1–2 (“Correspondence already of record
`shows that Joinder Petitioners [which include Petitioners here and petitioners
`in IPR2020-01045 and IPR2020-1060] explicitly agreed to Merck’s
`conditions”); see also Mylan IPR, Ex. 1018, 9:1–4 (Patent Owner’s counsel
`representing that “Merck can report that we see that there is agreement
`amongst Merck and the Joinder Petitioners on the understudy role that the
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`Joinder Petitioners would play.”). 10 Petitioner persuades us its participation
`will be limited to that of the silent understudy, and we appreciate the parties’
`efforts to reach agreement in that regard.
`As to joinder’s potential impact on the existing trial and briefing
`schedule, based on the facts known to us at present, we conclude that such
`impact is likely to be insubstantial and otherwise manageable. Mot. 6–7.
`For example, Petitioner, in its role as silent understudy, is not permitted to
`make its own filings in the Mylan IPR, nor may it pursue discovery from
`Patent Owner, or provide its own argument at oral hearing (if requested). To
`the contrary, Mylan is the lead petitioner, and Petitioner will be bound in this
`proceeding by the papers filed and representations made by Mylan in the
`Mylan IPR. 11 Petitioner’s agreement to withdraw the declaration of their
`own expert will also help streamline discovery here. Id. at 2–3.
`In its Opposition, Merck states that it “opposes joinder to the extent it
`precludes Merck from discovery to which it is otherwise entitled from
`Joinder Petitioners.” Opp. at 3–8. 12 Merck then cites an application for
`
`10 Exhibit 1018 in the Mylan IPR is a transcript of an August 10, 2020,
`conference call between the Board and counsel for the parties in IPR2020-
`00040, IPR2020-01045, IPR2020-01060, and IPR2020-01072.
`11 Although Petitioners are bound by all substantive filings made by Mylan,
`that does not extend to filings or representations unique to Mylan, such as
`matters related to potential or actual settlement.
`12 We agree with Petitioner that the cases cited by Patent Owner on this point
`are inapposite. Mot. Reply 4. The discovery issue in Unified Patents related
`to a dispute about identification of all real parties-in-interest, and in ZTE the
`joinder petitioner did not file an identical petition—in each case, injecting
`new and substantive party-specific issues. See Unified Patents, Inc. v.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`patent filed by Petitioner that includes disclosure that Patent Owner contends
`is inconsistent with Petitioner’s characterization of a prior art reference
`asserted here. Opp. 7. We need not decide at this point whether Merck is
`entitled to discovery from Petitioner on that particular matter. But Merck is
`not precluded from pursuing it, and, if the parties reach an impasse after
`exhausting good faith efforts, asking for the Board’s help in promptly
`resolving the dispute.
`We also note that, although Merck initially opposed joinder based on
`an alleged need for discovery from Petitioner before the due date for the
`Patent Owner Response in the Mylan IPR, and potential schedule disruption
`without it (Opp. 8–11), Merck more recently signaled that it no longer
`opposed joinder on that basis. Merck indicated it was, instead, reserving its
`right to seek discovery if joinder is ordered. See generally Mylan IPR,
`Ex. 1018, 10:3–12:18. Merck may pursue discovery as noted above. We
`remind the parties, however, that, consistent with the purposes of the Leahy-
`Smith America Invents Act, discovery in IPR proceedings is not the same as
`available in district court and under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`Consistent with our rules and precedents, IPR discovery is more limited and
`requests must, inter alia, be narrowly targeted to specific documents or
`information. See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-
`
`
`Personalweb Techs., IPR2014-00702, Paper 12, 5 (PTAB July 24, 2014);
`ZTE Corp. v. Adaptix, Inc., IPR2015-01184, Paper 10, 4–6 (PTAB July 24,
`2015). Not so here. Even accepting Patent Owner’s characterization of the
`discovery, it relates to an issue already in the Mylan IPR—the teachings of
`the asserted prior art. See Mylan IPR, Paper 21, 50–53, 55–56.
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`00001, Paper 26, 3–7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (precedential) (discussing limits
`with respect to both routine and additional IPR discovery). In sum, we are
`not convinced that discovery issues requiring the Board’s intervention will
`arise. But if they do, there is no adequate basis to conclude that such issues
`cannot be addressed promptly and fairly within the confines of the current
`schedule.
`On balance, we agree with Petitioner that joinder with the Mylan IPR
`is appropriate under the circumstances. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is,
`thus, granted.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of
`claims 1–4, 17, 19, and 21–23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 B2 is instituted
`in IPR2020-01072;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2020-
`00040 is granted, and Petitioner is joined as a party to IPR2020-00040;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all further filings by Petitioner and Patent
`Owner, except for those which concern a request for rehearing of this
`decision, shall be made only in IPR2020-00040;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the grounds and
`claims for trial in IPR2020-00040 remain unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the Scheduling
`Order for IPR2020-00040 (Papers 22 and 39) remains unchanged, subject to
`any change already made by stipulation between the parties or otherwise
`ordered by the Board;
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall, absent the Board’s
`permission, make no filing in the joined proceeding unless (1) Mylan settles
`with Patent Owner, and a Motion to Terminate Mylan from the joined
`proceeding has been filed by Mylan, or (2) the filing is a motion to terminate
`the proceeding with respect to Petitioner, a settlement agreement between
`Petitioner and Patent Owner, or a request to keep settlement agreement
`separate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c);
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2020-00040 shall
`be changed in accordance with the attached example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2020-00040.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01072
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jovial Wong
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`jwong@winston.com
`
`Jitendra Malik
`Alissa M. Pacchioli
`Christopher W. West
`Heike S. Radeke
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSEMAN LLP
`jitty.malik@kattenlaw.com
`alissa.pacchioli@kattenlaw.com
`christopher.west@katten.com
`heike.radeke@katten.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Stanley E. Fisher
`Jessamyn S. Berniker
`Shaun P. Mahaffy
`Anthony H. Sheh
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`sfisher@wc.com
`jberniker@wc.com
`smahaffy@wc.com
`asheh@wc.com
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 12
`
`Date: September 1, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., and
`SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`
`MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-000401
`Patent 7,326,708 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`
`1 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. were
`joined as a party to this proceeding via Motion for Joinder in IPR2020-
`01045; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
`were joined as a party to this proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in
`IPR2020-01060; and Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. was joined as a
`party to this proceeding via Motion for Joinder in IPR2020-01072.
`
`
`

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