`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: May 28, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. and
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JOHN G. NEW, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MITCHELL, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
`Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’462 patent”).
`Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder with the Petition
`seeking joinder with Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
`IPR2023-00724 (“Mylan IPR”), which we have previously instituted on the
`same challenged claims of the ’462 patent. Paper 2 (“Mot.”); see IPR2023-
`00724, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2024) (“Mylan Dec.”).
`Patent Owner Novo Nordisk A/S (“Patent Owner”) did not file an
`opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. See Paper 8 (Joint Stipulation
`Regarding Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder”), 1. Patent Owner, however,
`filed a Preliminary Response requesting that we exercise our discretion to
`deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of the parallel district
`court proceeding and Petitioner’s delay in filing this Petition requesting inter
`partes review. Paper 10, 1–2.
`Petitioner filed an authorized Reply addressing whether discretionary
`denial is appropriate. Paper 11. Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-Reply
`in response. Paper 12.
`We further authorized Petitioner to file an updated Sotera1 stipulation
`that it filed with the District Court in parallel litigation in which it agrees
`
`
`1 See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12
`(PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) (discussing the petitioner’s
`broad stipulation to limit invalidity grounds in district court).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`that it is estopped to the same extent as the petitioner in the original case to
`which it seeks joinder. See Exhibit 1099 (Sotera Stipulation). We also
`authorized Patent Owner an additional brief to address discretionary denial
`in view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and authorized Petitioner a one-
`page response. See Exhibit 3001; Papers 14, 15, respectively.
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). To institute an inter
`partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the
`Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, we decline to exercise our discretion
`to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because of Petitioner’s Sotera
`stipulation and the postponement of the district court’s trial date, and
`conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged
`claims of the ’462 patent. Therefore, we institute an inter partes review for
`claims 1–10 of the ’462 patent on the same grounds instituted in the Mylan
`IPR, and we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify the following consolidated litigation involving the
`
`’462 patent to which Petitioner is a defendant: (1) Novo Nordisk Inc. and
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun
`Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00296 (D. Del.) (transferred to
`MDL on August 5, 2022); (2) In re Ozempic (Semaglutide) Patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Litigation, No. 22-md-3038-CFC (D. Del.) (“Delaware Litigation”); and
`(3) Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S v. Rio Biopharmaceuticals,
`Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00294 (D. Del.). Pet 1–2; Paper 5, 1–2; Paper 7, 1.
`The parties also list the following litigations that involve the ’462 patent:
`(1) Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-
`00295 (D. Del.) (dismissed on March 28, 2022); (2) Novo Nordisk Inc. v.
`Rio Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00294 (D. Del.); (3) Novo
`Nordisk A/S v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00296 (D. Del.); (4)
`Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC, No. 1:22-cv-00297 (D.
`Del.); (5) Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 22-cv-01040-CFC
`(D. Del.) (6) Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-
`00298 (D. Del.); and (7) Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-
`00299 (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 1–2; Paper 7, 2.
`
`The parties also identify the following inter partes review
`proceedings as a related matter involving the ’462 patent: Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2023-00724 (PTAB) and
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd v. Novo
`Nordisk A/S, IPR2024-00009, both of which are instituted. Pet. 2; Paper
`5, 1; Paper 7, 3; see IPR2023-00724, Paper 10; IPR2024-00009, Paper 19.
`There is also one additional petition filed along with a motion for joinder
`to IPR2023-00724 that is pending decision on whether to institute trial:
`Apotex Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2024-00631 (PTAB).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability, which are
`identical to the grounds on which we instituted trial in IPR2023-00724:
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §2
`1–3
`102(a), (e)
`1–3
`102(b)
`1–10
`103(a)
`1–10
`103(a)
`1–10
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`WO4213
`Lovshin4
`WO421, ’424 publication5
`WO537, 6 Lovshin
`NCT657, 7 NCT773,8 ’424
`publication
`
`Compare Pet. 4, with Mylan Dec. 6–7, 40.
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became
`effective on March 16, 2013, after the filing of the applications to which the
`’462 patent claims priority. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA versions of
`Sections 102 and 103.
`3 Thomas Klein et al., WO 2011/138421 A1, published November 10, 2011
`(Ex. 1011, “WO421”).
`4 Julie A. Lovshin and Daniel J. Drucker, Incretin-based therapies for type 2
`diabetes mellitus, 5 NATURE REVIEWS/ENDOCRINOLOGY 262–269 (2009)
`(Ex. 1012, “Lovshin”).
`5 Tina B. Pedersen et al., US 2007/0010424 A1, published Jan. 11, 2007
`(Ex. 1016, “’424 publication”).
`6 Jesper Lau et al., WO 2006/097537 A2, published Sept. 21, 2006
`(Ex. 1015, “WO537”).
`7 ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial No. NCT00696657, A Randomised
`Controlled Clinical Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Comparing Semaglutide to
`Placebo and Liraglutide, http://web.archive.org/web/20111020123620/https:
`//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00696657 (Ex. 1013, “NCT657”).
`8 ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial No. NCT00851773, Safety, Tolerability,
`and Profile of Action of Drug in the Body of NN9536 in Healthy Male
`Japanese and Caucasian Subjects, https://web.archive.org/web/
`20090911011536/https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00851773
`(Ex. 1014, “NCT773”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of inter partes review is
`discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), the Board set
`forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness,
`and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of
`an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors are as
`follows:
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Id. at 5–6.
`In evaluating these factors, we take a holistic view of whether
`efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`instituting review. Id. at 6. The Director has also issued interim guidance to
`the Board on applying the factors. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with
`Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) 9, available at:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion
`ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf
`(“Director’s Guidance”).
`
`Patent Owner raises several arguments in favor of our exercise of
`discretion to deny this Petition under 35 U.S.C. 314(a). See Prelim. Resp.
`7–25. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner inappropriately delayed
`twenty months to file this Petition after Petitioner was sued for infringing the
`’462 patent, “watching from the sidelines” while “Delaware Litigation claim
`construction has been completed, fact discovery has closed, and the district
`court has continued to move toward trial seven months from now.” Prelim.
`Resp. 1–2; see id. at 13–17 (further stating final invalidity contentions have
`been served and expert discovery is underway in the parallel district court
`proceeding). Patent Owner further states that “Petitioner’s choice to delay
`its own challenge before the Office—and its attendant request for joinder,
`eliminating any final-written-decision deadline—significantly increases the
`risk of inconsistent outcomes in close proximity in two different
`jurisdictions.” Id. at 4 (emphases in original).
`
`In evaluating the Fintiv factors as set forth above, Patent Owner
`asserts that due to the advanced stage of the Delaware Litigation, it is
`unlikely to be stayed, the joined nature of this proceeding with the Mylan
`IPR renders the October 4, 2024 final written decision date a nullity, there is
`significant overlap between the issues raised in this Petition and those in the
`Delaware Litigation, and there are at least two defendants in the Delaware
`Litigation that are not subject to Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation here. Prelim.
`Resp. 7–23. Patent Owner concludes that the Petition does not present
`“compelling merits” especially in light of Patent Owner’s intent to swear
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`behind some of the asserted prior art and its reliance on objective indicia of
`non-obviousness. Id. at 24–25.
`
`Petitioner responds that Fintiv Factors 1, 2, and 5 are neutral because
`neither party has asked for a stay, the expected trial date in the Delaware
`Litigation and the Mylan IPR are “around the same time,” and Factor 5 plays
`no role because Petitioner here is a defendant in the Delaware Litigation.
`Reply 1–3. Petitioner asserts that the remaining Fintiv factors favor
`institution because claims 2, 6, and 8–10 involved in this proceeding are not
`at issue in the Delaware Litigation, Petitioner’s Sotera-type stipulation filed
`in the parallel district court proceeding is “dispositive” of any Fintiv analysis
`in view of the Director’s Guidance, and the Board instituted Mylan’s inter
`partes review on the same grounds presented here. Reply 2–3.
`
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s stipulation set forth in the
`paragraph above does not qualify as a Sotera stipulation because it was
`“filed by Petitioner as a joining party and thus does not ensure avoidance of
`overlap between the IPR and litigation here.” Sur-Reply 2 (emphasis in
`original).
`
`We granted Petitioner further authorization to file an updated
`stipulation as an exhibit in this proceeding that it filed with the District Court
`in the parallel proceeding. See Exhibit 3001. That stipulation provides as
`follows:
`
`Sun hereby stipulates that if the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (PTAB) institutes IPR2024-00107, then Sun will agree to
`be bound by the estoppel provisions set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(e)(2) in this civil action as of the date of institution of the
`Petition. For the avoidance of doubt, Sun also stipulates that it
`is bound by the estoppel provisions set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(e)(2) in this civil action as of the date of the Institution
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Decision as such provisions would apply to Petitioner Mylan
`Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the Mylan IPR.
`
`Ex. 1099, 2.
`
`Patent Owner filed a further authorized reply to address this
`stipulation. See Paper 14. Patent Owner asserts that this latest stipulation
`“should not be credited” because
`Whether the Board considers Petitioner’s (“Sun’s”) latest
`stipulation presents two significant questions of Board practice
`and policy: (1) whether a purported Sotera stipulation should be
`treated as dispositive when Sun admits it may still pursue the
`stipulated grounds “behind the scenes” in district court, and
`(2) whether the Board, despite its discretion, will consider
`Sun’s stipulation filed only 8 business days before institution is
`due, especially when this is Sun’s third attempt, and Sun
`unfairly used the developments and briefing in a related IPR to
`roadmap, delay and decide how little it could offer.
`
`Paper 14, 1.
`
`Petitioner filed an authorized response stating that our recent decision
`
`in Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc. et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2024-00009, Paper
`No. 19, 9 (PTAB April 25, 2024) (“DRL Decision”), relying on the
`Director’s’s Guidance is dispositive. Paper 15, 1. Petitioner asserts that
`“[t]he operable facts in this case are now the same as those considered by the
`Board in the DRL Decision, and thus, the resolution should be the same.”
`Id.
`The Director set forth in the Interim Procedure that “the PTAB will
`
`not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of parallel
`district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a
`parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.” Interim
`Procedure, 7, 9. This guidance does not condition or otherwise qualify the
`effect of a Sotera stipulation on our exercise of discretion to deny the
`Petition based on any remaining defendants in the parallel litigation that are
`not subject to the stipulation or any alleged “behind the scenes” participation
`by Petitioner such as paying for experts, participating in expert reports or
`deposition preparation “in connection with any of the stipulated grounds.”
`See Paper 14, 1. Petitioner has filed such a stipulation. See Ex. 1099.
`Therefore, we will not exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.
`
`We also find that with the change of the district court trial date to over
`two months after the original statutory due date for the Mylan IPR, the
`Mylan IPR should be completed before a trial in the district court begins.
`See Mylan IPR, Ex. 1098. This change in trial date, in addition to the lack
`of complete overlap in the claims asserted here and in the Delaware
`Litigation, provide further reason for us to refrain from exercising our
`discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) regardless of
`remaining defendants in the Delaware Litigation that are not bound by any
`estoppel arising from the Mylan IPR.9
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we decline to exercise our discretion
`to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`9 Patent Owner stipulates that if we deny institution here, “and to the extent
`any claims challenged here are not asserted in the Delaware Litigation, it
`will not seek to assert those claims in the Delaware Litigation against this
`Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 23 n.9. This stipulation leaves Patent Owner free
`to assert all these challenged claims against other defendants in the Delaware
`Litigation, which does not promote the public interest in resolving
`patentability issues for those claims.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`III. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds of
`unpatentability as the ones on which we instituted review in the Mylan IPR.
`Compare Pet. 4, with Mylan Dec. 6–7, 40. Here, Petitioner states:
`[T]he Sun Petition is limited to the same grounds
`instituted in Mylan’s IPR2023-00724 petition. It also relies on
`the same prior art analysis and expert analysis submitted by
`Mylan. Indeed, the Petition raises grounds identical to those
`raised in the IPR2023-00724 petition and does not include any
`new grounds not raised in that petition.
`
`Mot. 4. Petitioner also states:
`
`
`In order to further simplify the proceeding, Sun will rely on the same
`declarants as Mylan, Dr. John Bantle, Dr. William J. Jusko, and
`Dr. Paul Dalby (collectively, the “Mylan Declarants”), should
`Mylan permit it. If Mylan allows Sun to use the Mylan
`Declarants, then Sun will withdraw the declarations of
`Dr Melissa Weinberg, Dr. Craig Dyar, and Dr. Alekha K. Dash
`(the “Sun Declarants”) and rely solely on the declarations and
`testimonies of the Mylan Declarants.
`
`Mot. 4.
`
`In Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Patent Owner addresses
`
`whether we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. 314(a) to deny
`the Petition and does not address the merits of the Petition at this stage of the
`proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Mylan
`IPR, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that at
`least one claim is unpatentable. Mylan IPR, Paper 10, 17–29 (PTAB Oct. 4,
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`2023). We therefore institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds
`stated in the Petition.
`IV. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Joinder for purposes of an inter partes review is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which states:
`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 parties review under section 314.
`As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder
`should: set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; identify any new
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and explain what impact
`(if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr.
`24, 2013).
`Petitioner timely filed the Motion no later than one month after
`institution of the Mylan IPR. See Mot. 2–3; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As
`noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on
`which we instituted review in the Mylan IPR. See supra Section III; Mot. 4–
`6. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and substantially
`identical declarant testimony to that submitted by Mylan. See Mot. 4–5.
`Petitioner states:
`Further, the declarations of the Sun Declarants submitted in
`support of the present Petition present substantively identical
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`testimony to that of the Mylan Declarants, thus streamlining the
`issues for trial even if Mylan does not permit Sun to rely
`directly on the Mylan Declarants.
`
`Mot. 5. If Mylan agrees that Petitioner may use the Mylan Declarants,
`Petitioner will withdraw the declarations of its declarants. Mot. 4. If Mylan
`does not agree to allow Petitioner to retain the Mylan Declarants, Petitioner
`asserts it “would agree to withdraw the Sun Declarants if the Mylan
`Declarants have already been deposed based on their declarations in the
`Mylan IPR and the deposition transcripts have been made of record,” and
`Petitioner would rely on those declarations and testimony of the Mylan
`Declarants. Mot. 6.
`The Petition is substantively identical to the petition filed by Mylan.
`See supra Section III; Mot. 4. Thus, this inter partes review does not present
`any ground or matter not already at issue in the Mylan IPR.
`If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume a “silent understudy”
`role in the Mylan IPR, and agrees that this role shall apply unless Mylan
`ceases to participate in the instituted IPR. Mot. 7. Petitioner also agrees that
`as a “silent understudy,” it will abide by the following conditions:
`
`(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be
`consolidated with the filings of Mylan, unless a filing solely
`concerns issues that do not involve Mylan;
`(b) Sun shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`instituted by the Board in the Mylan IPR, or introduce
`any argument not already introduced by Mylan; and
`(c) With regard to taking of testimony, Sun will abide by
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between the Patent
`Owner and Mylan.
`
`Mot. 8.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`In lieu of filing an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder,
`
`Patent Owner filed a Joint Stipulation Regarding Petitioners’ Motion for
`Joinder setting forth the parties’ agreement as to the conduct of the Mylan
`proceeding if Petitioner is joined as a party. See Paper 8.
`
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and the
`parties’ stipulations as set forth in Paper 8, we determine that joinder with
`the Mylan IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we
`grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we decline to exercise our discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny the Petition and determine that the information
`presented in the Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one claim of the ’462 patent.
`At this stage in the proceeding, we have not made a final determination with
`respect to patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`VI. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–10 of the ’462 patent is hereby instituted on the grounds
`set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2023-00724 is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is joined as a party in
`IPR2023-00724, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122, wherein Petitioner will
`maintain a secondary role in the proceeding, unless and until the current
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00724 petitioners cease to participate as a petitioner in the inter
`partes review;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings in the joined proceeding
`are to be made only in IPR2023-00724;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2023-00724 shall
`be changed to reflect the joinder in accordance with the below example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2023-00724.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Brian Sodikoff
`Christopher B. Ferenc
`KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
`brian.sodikoff@katten.com
`christopher.ferenc@katten.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven Baughman
`Megan Raymond
`GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`megan.raymond@groombridgewu.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., SUN
`PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., AND SUN
`PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-0072410
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`____________
`
`
`10 IPR2024-00009 (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories) and IPR2024-00107 (Sun
`Pharmaceutical Industries) have been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`