`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Trials
`Mills, Jad; Trials
`Rosato, Michael; Green, Lora (External); Hostetler, Michael; Cuomo, Peter; Wintner, Thomas; Dixon, Williams;
`McGrath, Todd
`RE: IPR2022-00384, -00414, & -00415 - Request for leave to file reply to Patent Owner"s Preliminary Response
`Monday, May 23, 2022 10:21:31 AM
`
`Counsel, Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike Petitioner’s pre-
`institution reply submissions in IPR2022-00384, -414, and -415 is denied. Patent Owner’s challenge
`of Petitioner’s Exhibit 1057 is noted, but deemed insufficient to support authorizing a motion to
`strike. Insofar as Patent Owner alleges that the Reply exceeds the scope of our authorized additional
`briefing, we encourage Patent Owner to raise the issue in its Sur-reply due tomorrow. Any matter
`(i.e., argument, exhibit, or page count) that exceeds our instruction for additional briefing will not be
`considered at this stage of the proceedings.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Maria King
`Deputy Chief Clerk for Trials
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`703-756-1288
`
`
`
`From: Mills, Jad <jmills@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 11:55 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Rosato, Michael <mrosato@wsgr.com>; Green, Lora (External) <lgreen@wsgr.com>; Hostetler,
`Michael <mhostetler@wsgr.com>; Cuomo, Peter <PJCuomo@mintz.com>; Wintner, Thomas
`<TWintner@mintz.com>; Dixon, Williams <WSDixon@mintz.com>; McGrath, Todd
`<TMMcGrath@mintz.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00384, -00414, & -00415 - Request for leave to file reply to Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Trials,
`
`Patent Owner Sydnexis seeks to strike Petitioner’s pre-institution reply submissions in each of the
`above-referenced IPR proceedings. Petitioner filed the submissions on Tuesday, May 17, 2022.
`
`The basis is that Petitioner exceeded the number of new pieces of evidence authorized by the Board
`(relying on ten new documents instead of the maximum of three that were authorized) and
`exceeded the scope of authorized reply by attempting to pivot to new prior art bases (pages 4-7 of
`
`
`
`EX1057 and product art) instead of Exhibit 1004.
`
`Counsel for Sydnexis reached out to counsel for Petitioner (see below, and copied here) but has
`received no response. Due to the impending deadline for Sydnexis’s Sur-Reply this coming Tuesday,
`Sydnexis is raising this issue with the Board now in the hope of receiving timely guidance from the
`Board before the Sur-Replies becomes due.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Jad A. Mills
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`From: Mills, Jad
`Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 10:43 AM
`To: Cuomo, Peter <PJCuomo@mintz.com>; Wintner, Thomas <TWintner@mintz.com>; Dixon,
`Williams <WSDixon@mintz.com>; McGrath, Todd <TMMcGrath@mintz.com>
`Cc: Rosato, Michael <mrosato@wsgr.com>; Green, Lora <lgreen@wsgr.com>; Hostetler, Michael
`<mhostetler@wsgr.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00384, -00414, & -00415 - Request for leave to file reply to Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`I’m writing because the Petitioner Replies and accompanying evidence that you submitted
`on Tuesday exceed the submission scope that was authorized by the Board. Accordingly, we will be
`seeking to strike your reply submissions.
`
`As you know, the Board authorized your request to file a pre-institution “Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response” in each case to address “only those issues” of “the public
`accessibility of Exhibit 1004 and the proposed claim construction for the ‘buffer’ and ‘buffering
`agent’” limitations. You requested authorization to submit “2-3 exhibits to corroborate the public
`accessibility of Exhibit 1004,” and the Board expressly limited the scope of additional evidence you
`were authorized to submit to “no more than 3 exhibits addressing the public accessibility of Exhibit
`1004.”
`
`
`Notwithstanding the clarity of the Board’s order, you exceeded both the quantity of new
`evidence and the scope of the submission authorized by the Board. For example, you purported to
`submit only three new exhibits (EX1056-EX1058) with each reply, but you aggregated at least five
`different documents into EX1057. That EX1057 is a conglomeration of five different documents that
`you created for your Replies is evidenced by the different URLs at the bottoms of each of the pages
`that you numbered 1, 2, 3, 4-7, and 8-9 in EX1057. In addition to submitting seven new exhibits
`when only three were authorized, your reply further evaded the limits established by the Board by
`citing and relying on three additional documents that you did not submit into evidence. See, e.g.,
`IPR2022-00384, Reply at 2 n.1 (two URLs), 3 (URL last visited 5/12/2022). Petitioner’s reply briefing
`
`
`
`thus relies on 10 separate pieces of alleged evidence where the Board authorized no more than
`three. These blatant attempts to circumvent the limits on new evidence ordered by the Board justify
`expungement of the submission.
`
`
`In addition to violating the Board’s order regarding the number of new exhibits, the Replies
`also violate the Board’s order regarding the scope of the submission. As discussed above, the
`submission was required to be limited to corroborating the “public accessibility of Exhibit 1004.”
`Instead of staying within the authorized scope, the replies pivot away from corroborating the public
`availability of EX1004 as a printed publication at the FDA web site to a new reference (pages 4-7 of
`EX1057) that Petitioner alleges was publicly available from the NIH. IPR2022-00384, Reply at 3-4.
`Petitioner also pivots away from corroborating the public availability of EX1004 by arguing product-
`based prior art. See, e.g., IPR2022-00384, Reply at 2 (“not a new product…FDA records show ‘Akorn
`[] marketed their atropine ophthalmic product since 1995’” (citing EX1022-EX1023), 4 (arguing
`“757,000 patients received a dispensed prescription for atropine sulfate ophthalmic solution 2%
`from U.S. outpatient retail pharmacies” before August 4, 2017). Product-based prior art is not
`permitted in IPRs. See 35 U.S.C. §311(b). Petitioner’s departures from the scope of briefing
`authorized by the Board also justify expungement of the submission.
`
`
`Please let us know by 5pm Eastern time today whether you will withdraw your Reply
`submissions. Otherwise, we will approach the Board for authorization to strike them.
`
`Regards,
`
`Jad A. Mills
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`701 5th Ave. Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Direct: 206.883.2554
`Fax: 206.883.2699
`
`From: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2022 10:12 AM
`To: Cuomo, Peter <PJCuomo@mintz.com>; Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Mills, Jad <jmills@wsgr.com>; Rosato, Michael <mrosato@wsgr.com>; Green, Lora
`<lgreen@wsgr.com>; Hostetler, Michael <mhostetler@wsgr.com>; Wintner, Thomas
`<TWintner@mintz.com>; Dixon, Williams <WSDixon@mintz.com>; McGrath, Todd
`<TMMcGrath@mintz.com>
`Subject: RE: IPR2022-00384, -00414, & -00415 - Request for leave to file reply to Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`EXT - trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`Counsel, Petitioner’s request for additional briefing is granted. Under the circumstances, we find
`that additional briefing from both parties regarding the public accessibility of Exhibit 1004 and the
`
`
`
`proposed claim construction for the “buffer” and “buffering agent” would be useful. Accordingly, in
`each of IPR2022-00384, IPR2022-00414, and IPR2022-00415, Petitioner is authorized to file a Reply
`to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response of no more than five pages that addresses only those
`issues. The Reply may be accompanied by no more than 3 exhibits addressing the public accessibility
`of Exhibit 1004. The Reply and any accompanying exhibits shall be filed by May 17, 2022. Patent
`Owner is authorized to file a Sur-reply of no more than five pages, limited to addressing the
`substance of Petitioner’s Reply. Patent Owner is not authorized to file additional evidence with the
`Sur-reply. The Sur-reply shall be filed no later than May 24, 2022. In view of this authorization for
`additional briefing from both parties, a conference call is not necessary at this time.
`
`Thank you,
`
`Maria King
`Deputy Chief Clerk for Trials
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`703-756-1288
`
`
`
`From: Cuomo, Peter <PJCuomo@mintz.com>
`Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 9:36 AM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Mills, Jad <jmills@wsgr.com>; Rosato, Michael <mrosato@wsgr.com>; Green, Lora (External)
`<lgreen@wsgr.com>; Hostetler, Michael <mhostetler@wsgr.com>; Wintner, Thomas
`<TWintner@mintz.com>; Dixon, Williams <WSDixon@mintz.com>; McGrath, Todd
`<TMMcGrath@mintz.com>
`Subject: IPR2022-00384, -00414, & -00415 - Request for leave to file reply to Patent Owner's
`Preliminary Response
`
`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before
`responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments.
`
`Dear Trials,
`
`Petitioner requests leave to file a short Reply to Patent Owner’s preliminary response in IPR2022-
`00384, -00414, & -00415 to address arguments regarding the public accessibility of Exhibit 1004 as
`well as Patent Owner’s claim construction arguments for the “buffer” and “buffering agent”
`limitations. Petitioner believes that good cause exists to do so and seeks authorization to file a reply
`of no more than five (5) pages along with 2-3 exhibits to corroborate the public accessibility of
`Exhibit 1004. Petitioner is also amenable to Patent Owner receiving leave to file a sur-reply of equal
`length.
`
`The parties have conferred, and Patent Owner has indicated that it would be willing to assent to a 2-
`page reply limited to addressing the public accessibility of Exhibit 1004, but otherwise opposes
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s request. The parties are additionally available for a telephone conference on any of the
`following dates and times should the Board wish to discuss Petitioner’s request:
`
`
`Monday, May 9th (1-4 pm EST)
`Tuesday, May 10th (noon-4 pm EST)
`Wednesday, May 11th (noon-4 pm EST)
`
`
`Sincerely,
`Peter J. Cuomo
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Peter J. Cuomo
`Member
`
`Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
`One Financial Center, Boston, MA 02111
`+1.617.348.1854
`PJCuomo@mintz.com | Mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
`The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments
`to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
`and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not
`the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the
`email to the intended recipient, be advised you have received this
`message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing,
`or copying is strictly prohibited. Please notify the Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
`Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo sender immediately, and destroy all copies
`of this message and any attachments.
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for
`the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any
`attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
`contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and
`any attachments thereto.
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill 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.
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.

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