`_______________
`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.
`
`