`
`By:
`
`
`Andrew O Larsen, Ph.D., Esq.
`Reg. No. 59,315
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
`New York, NY 10110
`Main Telephone: (212) 223-6658
`Main Facsimile: (212) 223-6521
`alarsen@merchantgould.com
`
`
`Christopher J. Sorenson, Esq.
`Pro Hac Vice
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Main Telephone: (612) 336-4645
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`csorenson@merchantgould.com
`
`Melissa Hayworth, Esq.
`Registration No. 45,774
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2522
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`mhayworth@merchantgould.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. AND MSN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BAUSCH HEALTH IRELAND LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00016
`Patent No. 7,041,786
`_____________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................. 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ............................................................. 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate ............................................................................. 7
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Board’s Ability to Complete
`Review in a Timely Manner .................................................................... 8
`
`Joinder Will Promote Efficiency by Consolidating Issues and
`Preventing Inconsistencies .................................................................... 11
`
`D. Without Joinder, MSN May Be Prejudiced ......................................... 12
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Patent Owner or Mylan and Will
`Benefit the Interests of the Public ......................................................... 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385 (PTAB Jul. 29, 2013) ......................................................... 10, 11
`Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Tech. & Biores, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00556 (PTAB Jul. 9, 2014) ................................................................... 7
`
`Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical
`Co. Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01871 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2016)............................................................... 11
`Mazda Motor of America, Inc. et. al. v. Stratosaudio, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00205 (PTAB May 11, 2022)................................................................ 6
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland Limited,
`Case No. IPR2022-00722 ............................................................................passim
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00557 (PTAB Jun. 13, 2014) .............................................................. 12
`SAP America Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2014-00306 (PTAB May 19, 2014).............................................................. 11
`Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.,
`IPR2016-00345, Paper 12 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016) ............................................... 6
`
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. et al v. MSN Laboratories
`Private Limited et al.,
`Case No. 2-21-cv-10057 (DNJ) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. et al v. MSN Laboratories
`Private Limited et al,
`DNJ-2-21-cv-10057 (DNJ) ................................................................................... 2
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ........................................................................................... 1, 5, 15
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) ............................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c) ................................................................................................. 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ...................................................................................... 1, 5, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(collectively “Petitioners” or “MSN”) respectfully request joinder pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) of the above-captioned inter partes
`
`review directed to Claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,041,7861 (hereinafter “MSN
`
`IPR”) with the pending inter partes review concerning the same patent and the
`
`same grounds of invalidity in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health
`
`Ireland Limited, Case No. IPR2022-00722 (hereinafter “Mylan IPR”), which was
`
`instituted on September 14, 2022. (IPR2022-00722, Paper No. 16 ("Inst. Dec.")).
`
`MSN requests that this Motion for Joinder of Claims 1-6 be granted, as the
`
`arguments and substance in MSN's Petition are substantially the same as the
`
`arguments and substance of the petition filed in the Mylan IPR. (IPR2022-00722,
`
`Paper No. 1 ("Mylan Petition")). Joinder is appropriate because it will promote an
`
`efficient and consistent resolution of the patentability of the '786 patent and will
`
`not prejudice any of the parties to the instituted Mylan IPR. This Motion for
`
`Joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), as it is submitted within
`
`one month of September 14, 2022, the date of institution of the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,041,786 (hereafter "the '786 patent") is purportedly assigned to
`
`Bausch Health Ireland Limited.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`MSN is not aware of any reexamination certificates concerning the
`
`'786 patent, which is the subject of the Mylan IPR and the present MSN Petition.
`
`2.
`
`On April 22, 2021, Bausch Health Ireland Limited (hereinafter,
`
`"Patent Owner") and Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a complaint accusing MSN
`
`of infringing the '786 patent. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. f/k/a Valeant
`
`Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. et al v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al,
`
`DNJ-2-21-cv-10057 (DNJ).
`
`3.
`
`On April 28, 2021, Patent Owner and Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`filed a complaint accusing Mylan API US LLC, Mylan Inc., Mylan Laboratories
`
`Limited, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Viatris Inc. f/k/a Mylan NV of
`
`infringing the '786 patent. Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. f/k/a Valeant
`
`Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. et al v. Mylan Laboratories Limited et al, 2-21-cv-
`
`10403 (DNJ).
`
`4.
`
`On March 21, 2022, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed its
`
`petition for inter partes review of the '786 patent. (IPR2022-00722, Mylan Petition).
`
`5.
`
`The Mylan Petition included four grounds for challenging the
`
`validity of the '786 patent as follows:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Claim 1 Is Obvious Over Currie2 and Li3
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2, 4, and 5 Are Obvious Over Currie, Li, & Narayani4
`
`Ground 3: Claims 3-5 Are Obvious Over Currie, Li, Narayani & Campieri5
`
`Ground 4: Claim 6 Is Obvious Over Currie, Li & Ekwuribe6
`
`(IPR2022-00722, Mylan Petition at 4).
`
`6.
`
`On June 29, 2022, Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response.
`
`(IPR2022-00722, Paper No. 6.)
`
`
`2 Currie, M.G., et al., Human Uroguanylin, U.S. Pat. 5,489,670 (1996).
`
`3 Li, Z., et al., Purification, cDNA Sequence, and Tissue Distribution of Rat
`
`Uroguanylin, 68 REGUL. PEPT. 45-56 (1997).
`
`4 Narayani, R., et al., Polymer-Coated Gelatin Capsules as Oral Delivery Devices
`
`and their Gastrointestinal Tract Behaviour in Humans, 7 J. BIOMATER. SCI.
`
`POLYM. ED. 39-48 (1995).
`
`5 Campieri, M., et al., Oral Budesonide Is as Effective as Oral Prednisolone in
`
`Active Crohn’s Disease, 41 GUT 209-14 (1997).
`
`6 N.N. Ekwuribe, Conjugation-stabilized polypeptide compositions, therapeutic
`
`delivery and diagnostic formulations comprising same, and method of making and
`
`using the same, U.S. Pat. 5,359,030 (1994).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`7.
`
`On July 27, 2022, Patent Owner submitted a replacement version of
`
`the Preliminary Response. (IPR2022-00722, Paper No. 11 (“POPR”).)
`
`8.
`
`On August 8, 2022, Mylan filed a pre-institution reply. (IPR2022-
`
`00722, Paper No. 13.)
`
`9.
`
`On August 18, 2022, Patent Owner submitted a sur-reply regarding
`
`discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and its opposition to a motion to
`
`amend the real party-in-interest. (Mylan IPR, Paper No. 15.)
`
`10.
`
`On September 14, 2022 the Board instituted the Mylan IPR on all
`
`four grounds. (IPR2022-00722, Inst. Dec. at 32).
`
`11.
`
`The concurrently filed MSN Petition relies on the same grounds 1-4,
`
`the same prior art, and the same expert testimony and other evidence relied upon
`
`by Mylan in its Petition, and by the Board in instituting review of claims 1-6 in the
`
`Mylan IPR.
`
`12.
`
`Institution and joinder for the grounds 1-4 in the MSN Petition
`
`should create no additional burden for the Board, Patent Owner, or existing
`
`Petitioner Mylan because these grounds are the same as the instituted grounds in
`
`the Mylan IPR. In addition, joinder is appropriate because it will efficiently
`
`resolve the validity of claims 1-6 of the '786 patent over the same prior art in a
`
`single IPR proceeding, without prejudicing the parties to the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Absent termination of Mylan as a party to the proceeding, MSN will
`
`participate in the Mylan IPR proceeding in a limited capacity as an understudy.
`
`Moreover, joinder will have no impact on the schedule of the Mylan IPR because
`
`the trial phase of that proceeding is still in its early stages, and MSN, in its limited
`
`understudy role, is agreeable to the same schedule.
`
`14. Mylan also does not formally oppose MSN's Motion for Joinder
`
`unless joinder of MSN would extend the duration of the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings, stating:
`
`(c) JOINDER.--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.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Joinder of inter partes review proceedings is permitted
`
`up to one month after the institution decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers “the
`
`particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`considerations,” while remaining “mindful that patent trial regulations, including
`
`the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” See Mazda Motor of America, Inc. et. al. v.
`
`Stratosaudio, Inc., IPR2022-00205, Paper No. 10 at 6 (PTAB May 11, 2022).
`
`Further, the Board should consider that “there is policy preference for joining a
`
`party that does not present new issues that might complicate or delay an existing
`
`proceeding.” Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., IPR2016-00345, Paper
`
`12 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2016).
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the 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 id.; see also Mazda, IPR2022-00205, Paper No. 10 at 6.
`
`Joinder is justified when, as here, the second petition involves the same patent,
`
`claims, and grounds and relies on the same expert declarations and references.
`
`Mazda, IPR2022-00205, Paper No. 10 at 7. To the extent any party argues that
`
`joining this petition creates “the possibility of broadening the scope of issues” this
`
`is not “an adequate reason for denying joinder” especially here where MSN's
`
`Petition is substantively identical to the Mylan Petition, and so “the impact of
`
`joinder on the previous proceeding will be minimal from both a procedural and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`substantive view point.” Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Tech. & Biores, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00556, Paper No. 19, at 5 (PTAB Jul. 9, 2014).
`
`Under this framework, institution of IPR and joinder with the Mylan IPR is
`
`appropriate as set forth herein.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`Joinder with the Mylan IPR is appropriate because MSN's Petition is limited
`
`to the same grounds (Ground 1–4) instituted in the Mylan IPR petition and relies
`
`on the same prior art, analysis, and evidence submitted by Mylan. Indeed, other
`
`than certain formalities, the MSN Petition and evidence is substantially identical in
`
`content to the Mylan Petition.
`
`Joinder is also appropriate because it will promote the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive determination of the patentability of the challenged claims of the ’786
`
`patent. For example, a final written decision on the patentability of the ’786 patent
`
`has the potential to resolve current or future litigation-related issues with respect to
`
`the ’786 patent.
`
`Moreover, granting joinder will not prejudice the Patent Owner or Mylan,
`
`while MSN could be prejudiced if joinder is denied. Joinder should not
`
`significantly affect the timing in the Mylan IPR because the accompanying Petition
`
`does not raise any ground that is not raised in the Mylan IPR petition. In addition,
`
`there should be little to no additional cost to Patent Owner or Mylan upon joinder,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`given the substantial identity of the MSN and Mylan Petitions. Moreover, MSN
`
`and the public may be prejudiced if joinder is denied. Indeed, absent joinder,
`
`Patent Owner and Mylan could settle and request termination of the proceedings,
`
`which could leave intact a patent having claims that the Board has already
`
`determined to have a reasonable likelihood of being unpatentable.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Board’s Ability to Complete
`Review in a Timely Manner
`
`In this case, joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its
`
`review in a timely manner. Inter partes review proceedings should be completed
`
`and the Board’s final written decision issued no more than one year from
`
`institution of the review. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Here,
`
`joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to complete its review within one year
`
`because MSN's Petition relies on substantially identical grounds, analysis, and
`
`evidence to that relied upon by Mylan in its Petition and by the Board when
`
`instituting its review of claims 1-6 in the Mylan IPR.
`
`Joinder will have no substantial impact on the parties, or prevent the Board
`
`from issuing a final written decision in a timely manner, because MSN's Petition is
`
`a substantial copy of the Mylan Petition, and includes its grounds, prior art
`
`analysis, and expert declaration. In addition, the timing and content of the MSN
`
`Petition and Motion for Joinder minimize any impact to the Mylan IPR trial
`
`schedule. If this motion is granted, it also is anticipated that no expert witnesses
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`beyond those presented by Mylan and Patent Owner will be required.
`
`Moreover, absent termination of Mylan as a party, MSN will participate in
`
`the proceeding in a limited capacity as an understudy. MSN does not believe that
`
`an extension of the schedule will be required by virtue of joinder of MSN as a
`
`petitioner to this proceeding. MSN has already coordinated and agreed with Mylan
`
`regarding its understudy role, and is willing to adhere to the existing Scheduling
`
`Order in the Mylan IPR (see IPR2022-00722, Paper No. 17).
`
`If there are concerns regarding any potential impact on the schedule or the
`
`volume of materials to be submitted to the Board, MSN is amenable to procedures
`
`to simplify any further briefings or discovery. MSN also is agreeable to adopting
`
`procedures typical of those adopted upon granting a motion for joinder, such as
`
`consolidated filings and coordination between the petitioners during depositions
`
`and hearings. Visa Inc. et. al. v. Universal Secur. Registry, LLC, CMB2019-00026,
`
`Paper 7 at 4-5 (PTAB Jun. 11, 2019) STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Ocean
`
`Semiconductor LLC, IPR202200680, Paper 10 at 11-12 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2022).
`
`MSN understands that, so long as Mylan remains a party, the Board may order
`
`Mylan and MSN to consolidate filings and limit MSN to no additional filings in its
`
`understudy role. See STMicroelectronics, IPR202200680, Paper 10 at 11-12. In
`
`addition, MSN agrees to not submit any separate filings, except in the unlikely
`
`event of a disagreement with Mylan’s position or an issue unique to MSN arises
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`during the proceeding. In the event MSN needs to submit a separate filing, MSN
`
`will request authorization from the Board to submit a short separate filing directed
`
`only to that issue. In such an instance, the Board may allow the Patent Owner to
`
`respond to any separate filings with a corresponding number of pages. See Dell,
`
`Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 8-9 (PTAB
`
`Jul. 29, 2013).
`
`To the extent that the Board authorizes MSN to participate in the Mylan
`
`IPR, MSN will endeavor to coordinate with Mylan to consolidate authorized
`
`filings, manage questioning at depositions, ensure that briefing and discovery
`
`occur within the time normally allotted, and avoid redundancies. MSN will
`
`maintain an understudy role in the joined proceeding, and will assume a primary
`
`role only if Mylan ceases to participate in the IPR. MSN will not seek to submit
`
`any new expert declarations apart from those entered by Mylan, except in the event
`
`that MSN is precluded from relying on Mylan’s experts. In addition, because the
`
`MSN Petition and the Mylan Petition are substantially identical, no additional
`
`depositions will be needed, and so it is expected that depositions will be completed
`
`within ordinary time limits. As noted above, MSN will take an understudy role,
`
`and will not file any separate papers without consultation with Mylan and prior
`
`authorization from the Board. Accordingly, there is no additional burden on the
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`The aforementioned concessions offered by MSN have been previously
`
`acknowledged by the Board to minimize impact on the original IPR proceeding.
`
`Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.,
`
`IPR2015-01871, Paper 13 at 4 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2016); see also Dell, IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 at 8. MSN's concessions should simplify briefing and discovery,
`
`remove any complications or delays that could allegedly be caused by joinder,
`
`while providing the parties an opportunity to address all issues that may arise, so as
`
`to avoid any undue burden on Patent Owner, Mylan, or the Board. See Lupin,
`
`IPR2015-01871, Paper 13, at 2-7; see also SAP America Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00306, Paper 13, at 4 (PTAB May 19, 2014).
`
`For all of these reasons, MSN respectfully requests the Board grant this
`
`motion for joinder.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Promote Efficiency by Consolidating Issues and
`Preventing Inconsistencies
`
`Proceeding with a consolidated inter partes review as outlined above would
`
`avoid inefficiency and prevent inconsistencies. As discussed above, MSN’s
`
`proposed understudy role and cooperation with Mylan would result in the issuance
`
`of a final written decision without any delay in the present schedule.
`
`Because the current petition offers no new grounds, substantive arguments,
`
`evidence, references, or testimony, does not disrupt the present schedule of the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Mylan IPR, and does not add any additional discovery requirements, joinder of
`
`MSN's petition with the instituted Mylan Petition is appropriate.
`
`D. Without Joinder, MSN May Be Prejudiced
`
`MSN would be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join and participate in the
`
`Mylan IPR, as discussed above. This prejudice would affect both MSN’s filing of
`
`its Petition and associated fees, and the underlying litigation (Bausch Health
`
`Ireland Ltd. f/k/a Valeant Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. et al v. MSN Laboratories
`
`Private Limited et al., Case No. 2-21-cv-10057 (DNJ)).
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Patent Owner or Mylan and Will
`Benefit the Interests of the Public
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or Mylan. MSN’s
`
`proposed grounds for instituting an IPR are based on the same grounds, and the
`
`same references, expert testimony, and other evidence relied upon in the Mylan
`
`Petition, and by the Board when instituting review of claims 1-6 in the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`
`To the extent that there exists a minimal burden, it is “strongly outweighed
`
`by the public interest in having consistency of outcome concerning similar sets of
`
`claimed subject matter and prior art.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Virginia
`
`Innovation Sciences, Inc., IPR2014-00557, Paper 10, at 18 (PTAB Jun. 13, 2014).
`
`MSN has already coordinated and agreed with Mylan regarding its
`
`understudy role and is willing to adhere to the existing Scheduling Order in the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Mylan IPR, and Mylan has indicated that it will not oppose MSN's Motion for
`
`Joinder unless joinder of MSN would extend the duration of the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, MSN respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`the instant Motion for Joinder and accept the MSN Petition for joinder with Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland Limited, Case No. IPR2022-00722.
`
`
`
`Date: October 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Andrew Larsen/
`By:
`Andrew O Larsen, Ph.D., Esq.
`Reg. No. 59,315
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
`New York, NY 10110
`Main Telephone: (212) 223-6658
`Main Facsimile: (212) 223-6521
`alarsen@merchantgould.com
`
`Christopher J. Sorenson, Esq.
`Pro Hac Vice
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Main Telephone: (612) 336-4645
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`csorenson@merchantgould.com
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Melissa Hayworth, Esq.
`Registration No. 45,774
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2522
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`mhayworth@merchantgould.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this “MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)” was served in
`
`its entirety this 12th day of October, 2022 on the Patent Owner by serving via
`
`overnight delivery the correspondence address of record for the ’786 patent:
`
`162421 - SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP (Bausch Health)
`Attn: Kathryn Doyle
`Centre Square West,
`1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
`UNITED STATES
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via email on counsel of
`
`record for the Petitioner and via overnight courier to the Patent Owner, the NDA
`
`holder, and the counsel of record in Mylan Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Bausch
`
`Health Ireland Ltd., IPR2022-00722 (PTAB) as follows:
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals LLC7
`
`
`Jad A. Mills
`Richard Torczon
`Nicole W. Stafford
`Dennis D. Gregory
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC
`jmills@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`nstafford@wsgr.com
`dgregory@wsgr.com
`4863-5899-2145@mail.vault.netdocuments.com
`
`7 Mylan Pharmaceuticals has agreed to electronic service.
`
`
`
`Bausch Health Ireland Limited
`
`
`Justin J. Hasford
`Bryan C. Diner
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`justin.hasford@finnegan.com
`bryan.diner@finnegan.com
`
`Christina M. Ackermann, Esq.
`Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Head of Commercial Operations
`Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. c/o Bausch Health Companies, Inc.
`Bausch Health Ireland Limited c/o Bausch Health Companies, Inc.
`Bausch Health Companies Inc.
`400 Somerset Corporate Boulevard
`Bridgewater, NJ 08807
`
`Bausch Health Ireland Limited
`c/o Roger McGrath
`3013 Lake Drive
`Citywest Business Campus
`Dublin, Ireland 24
`
`Date: October 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`/Andrew Larsen/
`By:
`Andrew O Larsen, Ph.D., Esq.
`Reg. No. 59,315
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
`New York, NY 10110
`Main Telephone: (212) 223-6658
`Main Facsimile: (212) 223-6521
`alarsen@merchantgould.com
`
`Christopher J. Sorenson, Esq.
`Pro Hac Vice
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Main Telephone: (612) 336-4645
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`csorenson@merchantgould.com
`
`Melissa Hayworth, Esq.
`Registration No. 45,774
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`1900 Duke Street, Suite 600
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Main Telephone: (703) 684-2522
`Main Facsimile: (612) 332-9081
`mhayworth@merchantgould.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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
