`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`SAMSUNG BIOEPIS CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
` IPR2023-00884
`U.S. Patent No. 11,253,572
`
`_______________
`
`JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION TO MODIFY DUE DATES 2 AND 3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. and Patent Owner Regeneron
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the Parties”) have met and conferred and hereby
`
`jointly stipulate to modify the current DUE DATES 2 and 31 as set forth in the Second
`
`Modified Scheduling Order on March 11, 2024 as follows:
`
`Due Date
`DUE DATE 2
`Petitioner’s
`Reply
`DUE DATE 3
`Patent
`Owner’s Sur-
`Reply
`
`Current Due Date
`
`Amended Due Date
`
`May 17, 2024
`
`June 10, 2024
`
`June 28, 2024
`
`July 29, 2024
`
`Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, Petitioner files this Joint Notice of Stipulation
`
`to Modify Due Dates 2 and 3 on behalf of both Parties. A marked-up comparison of
`
`the stipulated and current Due Dates 2 and 3 is attached hereto.
`
`1 The Scheduling Order (Paper 14) recites that the Parties may only stipulate to
`
`different dates for portions of DUE DATES 1-3. The stipulated changes to the
`
`Scheduling Order, therefore, apply only to the portion of DUE DATE 2 related to
`
`Petitioner’s Reply and the portion of DUE DATE 3 related to Patent Owner’s Sur-
`
`Reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`DATED: April 23, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By /Raymond N. Nimrod/
`Raymond N. Nimrod (Reg. No. 31,987)
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel:
`(212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner Samsung Bioepis
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Joint Notice was served
`
`on April 23, 2024, to Counsel for Patent Owner Regeneron, Inc. via email to
`
`Regeneron-MoFo-IPR@mofo.com; Counsel
`
`for Biocon Biologics,
`
`Inc. at
`
`MYL_REG_IPR@rmmslegal.com;
`
`and Counsel
`
`for Celltrion,
`
`Inc.
`
`at
`
`lgreen@geminilaw.com,
`
`fchu@geminilaw.com,
`
`rcerwinski@geminilaw.com,
`
`azalcenstein@geminilaw.com, and bmorris@geminilaw.com.
`
`DATED: April 23, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By /Raymond N. Nimrod/
`Raymond N. Nimrod (Reg. No. 31,987)
`raynimrod@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-00884
`Patent 11,253,572 B2
`
`DUE DATE APPENDIX
`
`DUE DATE 1 .............................................................February 23, 2024
`
`Patent Owner’s response to the petition
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to amend the patent
`
`June 10, 2024
`DUE DATE 2 ..................................................................May 17, 2024
`
`Petitioner’s reply to Patent Owner’s response to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
`
`July 29, 2024
`DUE DATE 3 .................................................................June 28, 2024
`
`Patent Owner’s sur-reply to reply
`
`Patent Owner’s reply to opposition to motion to amend
`(or Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend)5
`
`DUE DATE 4 .................................................................... July 8, 2024
`
`Request for oral argument (may not be extended by stipulation)
`
`DUE DATE 5 .................................................................. July 26, 2024
`
`Petitioner’s sur-reply to reply to opposition to motion to amend
`
`Motion to exclude evidence
`
`DUE DATE 6 ............................................................... August 2, 2024
`
`Opposition to motion to exclude
`
`Request for prehearing conference
`
`DUE DATE 7 ............................................................... August 9, 2024
`
`Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
`
`DUE DATE 8 ..............................................................August 23, 2024
`
`Oral argument (if requested)
`
`5 If Patent Owner files neither a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the MTA
`nor a revised MTA, the parties are directed to Section III(C) above.
`
`
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
