`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APOTEX INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2022-00298
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,254,338 B2
`Filed: July 12, 2013
`Issued: February 9, 2016
`Inventor: George D. Yancopoulos
`
`Title: USE OF A VEGF ANTAGONIST TO TREAT
`ANGIOGENIC EYE DISORDERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 2
`
`A.
`B.
`
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 2
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Granting the Motion for
`Joinder ................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Joinder with the Mylan IPR is Appropriate ................................ 3
`2.
`Apotex Raises No New Grounds of Unpatentability .................. 4
`3.
`Joinder Would Not Affect the Schedule in the Mylan IPR ........ 5
`4.
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified ............................... 6
`IV. THE GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS PROVIDE NO REASON TO
`DENY INSTITUTION .................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Apotex Inc. (“Apotex” or “Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for
`
`Joinder, concurrently with a Petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,254,338 (“the ’338 Patent”). Apotex requests its Petition for inter partes review
`
`of the ’338 Patent be instituted and joined pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) with the inter partes review proceeding initiated by
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) concerning the ’338 Patent, Mylan Pharms.
`
`Inc. v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc., IPR2021-00881 (“the Mylan IPR”), which was
`
`instituted on November 10, 2021.
`
`Apotex’s Petition is essentially a copy of the Mylan IPR Petition. It includes
`
`the identical grounds and relies on the same evidence presented in the Mylan IPR.
`
`Apotex also stipulates that if joinder is granted, it agrees to an “understudy” role
`
`and will not raise any additional issues in the joined proceeding so long as Mylan
`
`remains an active party. Joinder would thus create no additional burden for the
`
`Board, the Mylan IPR Petitioner, or Patent Owner. Nor should it impact the Mylan
`
`IPR schedule. As such, joinder will promote judicial efficiency in determining
`
`patentability of the ’338 Patent without prejudice to Patent Owner.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On May 5, 2021, Mylan filed the Mylan IPR. On November 10, 2021, the
`
`Board instituted the proceeding.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Mylan has represented to Apotex that it will not oppose Apotex’s Motion for
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`
`
`Joinder.
`
`This motion is timely. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), joinder can be
`
`requested without prior authorization no later than one month after the institution
`
`date of the proceeding to which joinder is requested. This motion is being filed
`
`within one month of the Board’s decision instituting trial in the Mylan IPR, thus
`
`meeting the requirements of § 42.122(b).
`
`The present Petition is the first IPR petition filed by Apotex against the ’338
`
`Patent. The Mylan IPR Petition and the present Petition are substantively
`
`identical; they contain the same grounds, based on the same prior art combinations,
`
`against the same claims and rely on the same evidence, including identical expert
`
`declarations.1
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Board may grant a motion for joining an
`
`inter partes review petition with another inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). The Board, in determining whether to exercise its discretion to
`
`grant joinder, considers whether the joinder motion: (1) sets forth the reasons why
`
`1 The only differences between the Petition in this proceeding and in the
`Mylan IPR relate to the identification of petitioner-specific information.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`joinder is appropriate; (2) identifies any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`the petition; (3) explains what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) addresses specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17 at 4 (PTAB July 29, 2013); see also Kyocera Corp.
`
`v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, at 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013).
`
`B.
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Granting the Motion for Joinder
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where [like here] the party
`
`seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the
`
`existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962,
`
`Paper No. 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted); see also Sony Mobile Communications v. Ancora Tech., IPR2021-00663,
`
`Paper 17 at 29-33 (PTAB June 10, 2021) (granting motion for joinder of “copycat”
`
`petition, that challenged the same claims of the same patent based on the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability and that was supported by essentially the same expert
`
`declaration as the first Petition).
`
`1.
`Joinder with the Mylan IPR is Appropriate
`Joinder of Apotex’s IPR with the Mylan IPR is appropriate because it will
`
`resolve patentability issues between Patent Owner and Petitioners without
`
`significant impact on the Mylan IPR.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The instant Petition copies verbatim the challenges set forth in the Mylan
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`
`
`IPR Petition and relies on identical expert declarations. The only differences
`
`between the instant Petition and the Mylan Petition relate to formalities of a
`
`different party and counsel filing the petition and updating the petition regarding
`
`the related actions; there are no other changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or
`
`patentability arguments introduced in the Mylan IPR Petition.
`
`Granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Mylan. As discussed
`
`above, the instant Petition does not raise any new ground that is not raised in the
`
`Mylan IPR Petition. Therefore, there should be no additional burden to Patent
`
`Owner or Mylan due to Apotex’s joinder.
`
`Because these IPR proceedings are virtually identical, joining this
`
`proceeding with the Mylan IPR would permit the Board to “secure the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution” of the instant Petition and the Mylan IPR Petition in a
`
`single proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`2.
`Apotex Raises No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`The instant IPR does not assert any new grounds of unpatentability beyond
`
`those in the Mylan IPR Petition. As stated above, the instant Petition challenges
`
`the same claims of the ’338 Patent based on the same prior art, the same
`
`arguments, and the same evidence as the Mylan IPR. In addition, Apotex relies on
`
`the expert declarations filed in the Mylan IPR. Therefore, joinder of this
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`proceeding with the Mylan IPR will not raise any new issues of unpatentability and
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`will not impose any additional burden on the Board or add additional complexity to
`
`the proceeding.
`
`3.
`Joinder Would Not Affect the Schedule in the Mylan IPR
`Joinder should have no impact on the Mylan IPR trial schedule because the
`
`instant Petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability. There are no
`
`new issues for the Board to address, and Patent Owner will not be required to
`
`present any additional responses or arguments, or conduct any additional
`
`discovery. Moreover, Apotex will adhere to all deadlines set by the Board’s
`
`Scheduling Order for the Mylan IPR. The Patent Owner’s Response will not be
`
`impacted because the issues presented in the instant Petition are identical to the
`
`issues presented in the Mylan IPR Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to
`
`provide any additional analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide
`
`in responding to the Mylan IPR Petition, and the instant Petition will not impact
`
`the due date for the Patent Owner Response.
`
`Further, no additional expert discovery will be needed. Apotex is relying on
`
`the same experts as Mylan and has filed identical expert declarations of each
`
`declarant. Thus, there will be no need for any separate deposition of Apotex’s
`
`expert, and there will be no impact to the trial schedule.
`
`Accordingly, joinder of Apotex to the Mylan IPR will not impact any due
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`dates in the Mylan IPR or affect the Board’s ability to complete its review and final
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`decision within the statutory time limits under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(c).
`
`4.
` Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`Apotex agrees to an “understudy” role and will not raise any additional
`
`issues. Specifically, Apotex agrees that, if joined, the following conditions shall
`
`apply so long as Mylan remains an active party:
`
`a) All substantive filings will be consolidated, for which Mylan will
`
`maintain responsibility (i.e., Apotex will rely on the filings of Mylan), unless a
`
`filing solely concerns issues that do not involve Mylan (e.g., Mandatory Notices);
`
`b) Apotex shall rely on the grounds instituted by the Board in the Mylan
`
`IPR, and the arguments and discovery introduced by Mylan; Apotex shall not raise
`
`grounds not already instituted by the Board in the Mylan IPR, or introduce
`
`argument or discovery not introduced by Mylan;
`
`c) Apotex agrees not to seek discovery or depositions in this proceeding
`
`beyond any agreement reached between Patent Owner and Mylan concerning
`
`discovery and depositions for the Mylan IPR;
`
`d) Apotex at deposition shall not request any direct, cross examination or
`
`redirect time beyond that permitted for Mylan alone; and
`
`e) Apotex agrees to be bound by the depositions and declarations of Mylan’s
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`experts, unless Mylan ceases to be an active participant in its IPR prior to its
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`experts’ depositions.
`
`IV. THE GENERAL PLASTIC FACTORS PROVIDE NO REASON TO
`DENY INSTITUTION
`The Petition accompanying this motion is Apotex’s first Petition with regard
`
`to the ’338 Patent and not a coordinated serial attack that presents the “undue
`
`inequities and prejudices” addressed by the Board’s precedent. See General Plastic
`
`Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 17–18 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19). The General Plastic factors do not favor denial.
`
`Factor 1 considers “whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`
`directed to the same claims of the same patent.” Id., at 16. Here, Apotex has not
`
`previously filed any petition against the ’338 patent. Apotex and Mylan are
`
`separate, unrelated petitioners, and are not similarly situated for purposes of Factor
`
`1. Apotex and Mylan are not codefendants in a litigation involving the ’338 patent.
`
`This factor thus weighs in favor of institution and against discretionary denial.
`
`As to the timing examined in factors 2-5, Apotex did not previously file an
`
`earlier petition prior to this Petition. See Sony Mobile Communications v. Ancora
`
`Tech., IPR2021-00663, Paper 17 at 11-15 (PTAB June 10, 2021) (finding that
`
`factors 2-5 weighed “strongly” in favor of institution for joinder motion of
`
`“copycat” Petition where it was the joining petitioner’s first petition challenging
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`the patent); Netflix, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., IPR2020-01423, Paper 7 at 5−6
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`(PTAB Mar. 11, 2021) (a prior petition filed by an unrelated petitioner is not a
`
`basis for denial of institution). Furthermore, Apotex made no serial attack on
`
`the ’338 Patent asserting different combinations of prior art, but rather chose to file
`
`a substantively identical IPR to the Mylan IPR within the one-month time period
`
`allowed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In other words, Apotex did not seek to gain
`
`any tactical advantage from Patent Owner’s earlier Preliminary Response, as it
`
`filed the same Petition as in the Mylan IPR, without modification and based on the
`
`same arguments. These factors thus weigh in favor of institution and against
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`Factors 6 and 7 also factors weigh in favor of institution, as there should be
`
`no material impact on the Board’s finite resources or its ability to issue a final
`
`determination on the Mylan IPR Petition within one year as explained in detail
`
`above.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Apotex respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`its Petition for inter partes review of the ’338 Patent and that this proceeding be
`
`joined with IPR2021-00881.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Apotex’s Motion for Joinder
`IPR of U.S. Patent 9,254,338
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Teresa Stanek Rea/
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`Reg. No. 30,427
`Deborah H. Yellin
`Reg. No. 45,904
`Shannon M. Lentz
`Reg. No. 65,382
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`P.O. Box 14300
`Washington, DC 20044-4300
`
`Counsel for Apotex
`
`9
`
`