`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner
`Case IPR2020-01252
`Patent No. 8,114,833B2
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Submitted Electronically via the PTAB E2E System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................... 1
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................... 2
`III.
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ...................... 3
`A.
`Joinder is timely. ............................................................................................ 3
`B.
`Joinder is appropriate. .................................................................................... 4
`1. Legal standard. ........................................................................................... 4
`2.
`Joinder is appropriate because both IPRs present exactly the same
`grounds and the same evidence of obviousness concerning the same claims. .. 4
`3.
`Joinder will not impact the existing trial schedule. ................................... 5
`4.
`Joinder would simplify briefing and discovery. ........................................ 6
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 7
`
`IV.
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioner Pfizer Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully moves for joinder and/or
`
`consolidation of its today-filed petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 1-
`
`31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833 B2 (“the ’833 patent”) with a previously instituted
`
`and currently pending IPR, captioned Mylan Institutional LLC. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
`
`No. IPR2020-00324 (the “Mylan IPR”).
`
`The Mylan IPR was instituted on June 23, 2020, on the same patent and the
`
`same claims as Petitioner’s Petition (the “Petition”) filed today. Further, Petitioner
`
`here asserts that the same claims are anticipated and/or obvious over the same prior
`
`art based on the same arguments presented in the Mylan IPR.
`
`As of the date of this motion, Mylan has consented to Petitioner’s request to
`
`join the Mylan IPR provided that joinder does not impact the timing for a final
`
`written decision in the Mylan IPR.
`
`Joinder will not add any new substantive issues to the proceedings or
`
`otherwise cause any delay in the resolution of the Mylan IPR. Joinder, therefore, is
`
`appropriate because it will promote the efficient and consistent resolution of the
`
`same patentability issues with respect to the ’833 patent, it will not delay the Mylan
`
`IPR trial schedule, and the parties in the Mylan IPR will not be prejudiced.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`Petitioner also agrees to abide by and adopt all of the actions and proceedings
`
`in the Mylan IPR that may occur prior to the Board reaching its decision on the
`
`instant Petition and motion for joinder.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`Novo Nordisk A/S (“Patent Owner”) purportedly owns the ’833 patent.
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner identifies the following previously completed litigation and
`
`inter partes review related to the ’833 patent:
`
`• The ’833 patent was asserted in Novo Nordisk Inc. et a. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.., No. 1:17-cv-00227 (D. Del.), and in Novo
`
`Nordisk Inc. et al. v. Mylan Institutional LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00164
`
`(N.D.W. Va.).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner is not aware of any reexamination certificates or pending
`
`prosecution concerning the ’833 patent. The following litigation or inter partes
`
`reviews related to the ’833 patent are pending:
`
`• On June 23, 2020, the Board granted institution of inter partes review
`
`in the Mylan IPR. Mylan IPR, Paper 12.
`
`• The ’833 patent has been asserted in Novo Nordisk Inc. et al. v. Mylan
`
`Institutional LLC, No. 1:19-cv-01551 (D. Del.), Novo Nordisk Inc. et
`
`al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00747 (D. Del.), and Novo Nordisk Inc.
`
`et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-06842 (D.N.J.).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`4.
`
`The Board instituted the Mylan IPR on three grounds: (1) Claims 1-15
`
`as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Flink; (2) Claims 1-15 as obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Flink; and (3) Claims 1-31 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) over Flink and Betz.
`
`5.
`
`Along with its Motion for Joinder, Petitioner here has simultaneously
`
`filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review, No. IPR2020-01252, which argues, inter
`
`alia, that the same claims of the ’833 patent are anticipated and/or obvious over the
`
`same grounds and for the same reasons set forth in the Mylan IPR. The Petition is
`
`also supported by the expert declaration of Dr. Laird Forrest, who is the same expert
`
`supporting the Mylan IPR. The opinions set forth in Dr. Forrest’s declaration are
`
`identical to the opinions set forth in his declaration filed in the Mylan IPR (Mylan
`
`IPR Ex. 1002).
`
`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 in support of the
`
`unpatentability of claims 1-31 of the ’833 patent.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`Joinder is timely.
`A.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, 42.122(b), this motion for joinder is timely
`
`because it is submitted within one month of the date the Mylan IPR was instituted.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The Mylan IPR was instituted on June 23, 2020, and this motion has been filed on
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`July 22, 2020.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder is appropriate.
`Legal standard.
`1.
`The Board has discretion to, and should, join Petitioner’s IPR with the Mylan
`
`IPR. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis
`
`Innovation Limited, IPR-2013-00250, 2013 WL 6514079, at *2 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3,
`
`2013). In considering a motion for joinder, the Board considers the following
`
`factors: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) new grounds of
`
`unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) the impact (if any) joinder would have on
`
`the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery may
`
`be simplified. See Dell Inc. v Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., Decision on
`
`Motion for Joinder, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 4 (July 29, 2013); Board’s
`
`Frequently Asked Questions, at H5 available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/
`
`boards/bpai/prps.jsp. All of the foregoing factors here weigh in favor of joinder.
`
`2.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because both IPRs present exactly the
`same grounds and the same evidence of obviousness
`concerning the same claims.
`Joinder is appropriate here because the Petition asserts exactly the same
`
`grounds and relies on the same evidence for unpatentability that formed the basis for
`
`institution in the Mylan IPR. Specifically, the Petition relies on the same
`
`combinations of prior art references. The arguments in both petitions are the same,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`and there are no new grounds of, or evidence supporting, unpatentability asserted in
`
`the Petition. Given that grounds are identical in both IPRs, the Board will need to
`
`decide the same issues—the Petition will not add any additional dimension to the
`
`substantive issues in the Mylan IPR. Also, Petitioner has relied upon the exact same
`
`expert testimony as Mylan in their respective petitions.
`
`Since the parties will be presenting, and the Board will be determining, the
`
`same issues in both IPRs, joinder is the most efficient and economical manner to
`
`proceed. See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Limited, IPR2013-00250,
`
`2013 WL 6514079, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 3, 2013) (granting motion for joinder where
`
`the second petition involved the same parties, the same patent, and much of the same
`
`prior art).
`
`Joinder will not impact the existing trial schedule.
`3.
`Joinder will not introduce any new prior art, expert opinions that substantially
`
`differ from those previously filed, or grounds of unpatentability into the Mylan IPR,
`
`so joining Petitioner’s proceeding will not add any procedural complications or
`
`delay the progress of resolving the substantive issues already pending in the Mylan
`
`IPR. Petitioner will not request any alterations to the schedule in the Mylan IPR
`
`based on the requested joinder. Accordingly, joinder will not impact the trial
`
`schedule for existing review of the Mylan IPR or otherwise unfairly prejudice the
`
`Patent Owner. Additionally, Petitioner has informed the Mylan IPR petitioner that
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`it will coordinate with the Mylan IPR petitioner, and that it agrees to take an
`
`understudy role in these proceedings if joinder is granted.
`
`Joinder would simplify briefing and discovery.
`4.
`Since the prior art and grounds for unpatentability in the petitions in both this
`
`IPR and the Mylan IPR are the same, the same arguments will be made by both
`
`groups of petitioners. Without joinder, largely duplicative briefs and other papers
`
`would be filed in parallel IPRs. Joinder would thus eliminate duplicative
`
`proceedings and reduce the burdens on the Board and the parties.
`
`Petitioner will coordinate with the Mylan IPR petitioner here to facilitate the
`
`elimination of repetitive briefs and testimony. Petitioner has also informed the
`
`Mylan IPR petitioner that Petitioner will maintain a secondary role in the
`
`proceeding, if joined. Petitioner will assume a primary role only if the Mylan IPR
`
`petitioner ceases to participate in the IPR. Petitioner’s representations remove any
`
`potential “complication or delay” caused by joinder, while providing the parties an
`
`opportunity to address all issues that may arise and avoiding any undue burden on
`
`Patent Owner, the Mylan IPR petitioner, and the Board. See, e.g., Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. June 20, 2013).
`
`Therefore, briefing and discovery would be significantly simplified if joinder were
`
`granted.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01252 Patent No. 8,114,833 B2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`institute its Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,114,833 and join
`
`this proceeding with Mylan Institutional LLC v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. IPR2020-
`
`00324.
`
`Dated: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Jovial Wong/
`Jovial Wong
`Reg. No. 60,115
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, I certify that I caused to be
`
`served a true and correct copy of the foregoing: Motion for Joinder with Related
`
`Instituted Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,114,833 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.112(b) by Federal Express Next Business Day
`
`Delivery on the Patent Owner’s correspondence address of record for the subject
`
`patent as follows:
`
`Novo Nordisk Inc.
`Intellectual Property Department
`800 Scudders Mill Road
`Plainsboro NJ 08536
`and by email to the service addresses for Patent Owner listed in Paper No. 16 in
`
`IPR2020-00324:
`
`joelke@fenwick.com
`ryan.johnson@fenwick.com
`laura.moran@fenwick.com
`Novo833IPR@fenwick.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 22, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Jovial Wong/
`Jovial Wong
`Reg. No. 60,115
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`