throbber
Sayem Osman
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Wednesday, November 29, 2023 10:57 AM
`J. Steven Baughman; Trials
`White, Brandon (Perkins Coie); Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie); White-ptab@perkinscoie.com; Greb-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com; jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com; tietz-
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com; Semaglutide-Ozempic@perkinscoie.com;
`Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com; Megan Raymond
`RE: IPR2023-00724 - Request for Conference Call
`
`Follow Up Flag:
`Flag Status:
`
`Follow up
`Flagged
`
`Dear Counsel, 

`From the Board – 

`The time for filing a request for rehearing in the above‐referenced case has expired.  We do not agree that the addition 
`of Petitioner Mylan as a party to a trial that may begin a few days before our final written decision is due or the filing of 
`two additional petitions by other petitioners constitutes good cause for the waiver of the request for rehearing 
`deadline.  Also, we noted in our Institution Decision that “Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s assertions that a 
`trial here would most likely conclude before the parallel Delaware litigation, and Petitioner’s stipulation ‘that if the 
`Board institutes, Petitioner will not pursue in the district court any instituted grounds against the originally‐issued claims 
`unless a change in law otherwise permits.’”  Paper 10, 16.  Patent Owner’s request for leave to file a request for 
`rehearing of institution is denied.  No call is necessary at this time. 

`Regards, 

`Esther Goldschlager 
`Supervisory Paralegal Specialist  
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board 
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office 

`From: J. Steven Baughman <steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com>  
`Sent: Monday, November 27, 2023 7:58 PM 
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV> 
`Cc: White, Brandon (Perkins Coie) <BMWhite@perkinscoie.com>; Beel, Bryan D. (Perkins Coie) 
`<BBeel@perkinscoie.com>; White‐ptab@perkinscoie.com; Greb‐ptab@perkinscoie.com; prochnow‐
`ptab@perkinscoie.com; jones‐ptab@perkinscoie.com; tietz‐ptab@perkinscoie.com; lembo‐ptab@perkinscoie.com; 
`Semaglutide‐Ozempic@perkinscoie.com; Novo‐Semaglutide‐IPR@groombridgewu.com; Megan Raymond 
`<megan.raymond@groombridgewu.com> 
`Subject: IPR2023‐00724 ‐ Request for Conference Call 

`CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on 
`links, or opening attachments. 

`Patent Owner writes to request leave to file a request for rehearing of institution, or other comparable briefing as the 
`Board may deem appropriate, to address changes in circumstances that have arisen since institution and that impact the 
`Fintiv factors, including that (1) after an October 31, 2023 stipulation and order by the district court adding Mylan to a 
`1
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2005
`Dr. Reddy's Laboratories v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2024-00009
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`trial that was originally scheduled only for other parties, Mylan is now scheduled for trial before the FWD in this IPR 
`would be due (without regard to whether the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) becomes applicable), and (2) there are 
`two pending copycat petitions.  Patent Owner requests 5 pages of briefing to address these issues.  Patent Owner has, 
`alternatively, requested that Petitioner agree to provide a Sotera stipulation, but Petitioner has declined.  To the extent 
`Patent Owner’s request for additional briefing is granted, Patent Owner would not oppose an opposition brief from 
`Petitioner of equal length. Regarding Petitioner's assertions below arguing its positions, Patent Owner notes its 
`understanding Petitioner’s inclusion of such argument in its email is improper and a violation of the Board's 
`procedures.  Accordingly, Patent Owner does not attempt herein to respond to the substance of those arguments, other 
`than to note its disagreement and to indicate that it is prepared to address those arguments on any call that the Board 
`may schedule and in the requested briefing.  Petitioner states its position as follows: Patent Owner’s request for leave 
`rests on two alleged “change[s] in circumstances that have arisen since institution.” But there are no changed 
`circumstances, and Patent Owner’s request is untimely. First, Petitioner’s trial date is not a “change in circumstances.” 
`Although Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner is “now” scheduled for trial late in 2024, the Delaware trial was scheduled 
`on June 30, 2022, and that trial date was addressed in the Petition. See Pet. at 65; see also Ex. 1082. It remains the case 
`that “a final written decision should issue before a decision is expected to be issued by any district court” as stated in 
`the Petition. Second, while two copycat petitions have been filed, Patent Owner has indicated it intends to file 
`preliminary responses, and there has been no joinder ruling. The mere existence of copycat petitions is not a changed 
`circumstance for this trial. Third, Patent Owner’s request is an untimely attempt to do by rehearing what Patent Owner 
`did not do before: address the Fintiv factors on the merits. Petitioner addressed Fintiv in its Petition and offered a Sand 
`Revolution stipulation, Pet. at 65‐66, but Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response addressed neither Fintiv nor the 
`stipulation. It is also too late for Patent Owner to address Fintiv now because any request for rehearing should have 
`been filed by October 18, 2023. For all these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board deny the request 
`for leave to file for rehearing. 

`The parties are available for the requested call at 4pm ET on Thursday (November 30), Friday (December 1), or Monday 
`(December 4), or as the Board may otherwise direct.  (These times reflect that counsel for Patent Owner are presently 
`on business travel in Asia.) 

`Respectfully submitted, 
`J. Steven Baughman 
`Counsel for Patent Owner 

`J. Steven Baughman 
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP 
`801 17th Street, NW, Suite 1050 
`Washington, DC 20006 
`O +1 202‐505‐5832, M +1 617‐378‐5548 
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com 
`Pronouns: he/his 

`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
`review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in 
`error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.  

`This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
`review, use, or dissemination by anyone other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in 
`error, please notify us and delete all copies of this message.  
`
`2
`
`Novo Nordisk Exhibit 2005
`Dr. Reddy's Laboratories v. Novo Nordisk A/S
`IPR2024-00009
`Page 00002
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket