Paper 19
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: April 25, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00009
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Entered: April 25, 2024
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC. and
`DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2024-00009
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Background
`
`Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
`(“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 2
`(“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 3 (“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 12 (Joint
`Stipulation Regarding Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder submitted “in lieu of
`[Patent Owner] filing an opposition to that motion”). Patent Owner,
`however, filed a Preliminary Response requesting that we exercise our
`discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 315(c)1 in light
`
`
`1 Patent Owner asserts that the Petition was not “properly filed” because it
`was filed more than one year after Petitioner was served with a complaint
`alleging infringement of the ’462 patent. See Prelim. Resp.
`24–25. Although acknowledging that the United States Court of Appeals for
`the Federal Circuit has taken an opposing view, Patent Owner raised this
`issue to preserve it in light of a petition for a writ of certiorari at the
`Supreme Court in which it was argued that such petitions are not properly
`filed. Id. (citing VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., No.
`23-315, Dkt. 1, at 11 (U.S. Sept. 20, 2024)). The petition for writ of
`certiorari in VirnetX has since been denied. See id., cert. denied Feb. 20,
`2024.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`of the parallel district court proceeding and Petitioner’s delay in filing this
`Petition requesting inter partes review. Paper 13, 1.
`Petitioner filed an authorized Reply addressing whether discretionary
`denial is appropriate. Paper 14. Patent Owner filed an authorized Sur-Reply
`in response. Paper 15.
`After a conference call with the parties, we further authorized
`Petitioner to file a Sotera2 stipulation in which it agrees that it is estopped to
`the same extent as the petitioner in the original case to which it seeks
`joinder, and the District Court Order changing the trial date in the parallel
`proceeding. See Exhibits 1098 (District Court’s Order) and 1099 (Sotera
`Stipulation). We also authorized Patent Owner an additional brief to address
`discretionary denial in view of Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation. See Paper 18.
`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) or 315(c) 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
`
`2 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).
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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. v.
`Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 22-cv-01040-CFC (D. Del.); (2) In re Ozempic
`(Semaglutide) Patent Litigation, No. 22-md-3038-CFC (D. Del.)
`(“Delaware Litigation”); and (3) Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Mylan Pharms.
`Inc., No. 22-cv-00023 (N.D. W. Va.). Pet 1–2; Paper 6, 1 (noting
`Northern District of West Virginia case transferred to the District of
`Delaware); Paper 8, 1; Paper 10, 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.
`Dr. Reddy’s Laby’s Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00298 (D. Del.); and (6) Novo
`Nordisk Inc. v. Alvogen, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00299 (D. Del.). Pet. 2; Paper
`6, 2; Paper 8, 2; Paper 10, 1.
`
`Patent Owner further identifies the following inter partes review
`proceeding as a related matter involving the ’462 patent: Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2023-00724 (PTAB).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 6, 1; Paper 8, 1; Paper 10, 1. There are also two additional petitions
`filed along with motions for joinder to IPR2023-00724 that are pending
`decisions on whether to institute trial: (1) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
`Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2024-00107 (PTAB); and (2) Apotex Inc. v.
`Novo Nordisk A/S, IPR2024-00631 (PTAB).
`
`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. §3
`1–3
`102(a), (e)
`1–3
`102(b)
`1–10
`103(a)
`1–10
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`WO4214
`Lovshin5
`WO421, ’424 publication6
`WO537,7 Lovshin
`
`
`3 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.
`4 Thomas Klein et al., WO 2011/138421 A1, published November 10, 2011
`(Ex. 1011, “WO421”).
`5 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”).
`6 Tina B. Pedersen et al., US 2007/0010424 A1, published Jan. 11, 2007
`(Ex. 1016, “’424 publication”).
`7 Jesper Lau et al., WO 2006/097537 A2, published Sept. 21, 2006
`(Ex. 1015, “WO537”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §3
`1–10
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`NCT657,8 NCT773,9 ’424
`publication
`
`See Mylan Dec. 6–7, 40.
`
`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;
`
`
`8 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”).
`9 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”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion
`ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf
`(“Interim Procedure”).
`
`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.
`7–24. Namely, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner inappropriately delayed
`eighteen 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 eight 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`behind some of the asserted prior art and its reliance on objective indicia of
`non-obviousness. Id. at 23–24.
`
`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 stipulates that if the Petition
`here is instituted it “will not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding
`the same grounds as in the Petition or any grounds that could have
`reasonably been raised therein,” and the Petition offers compelling evidence
`of unpatentability. Reply 2–3.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s stipulation set forth in the
`
`paragraph above is a “do-over” stipulation that 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).
`
`Petitioner sought our authorization to file a stipulation to clarify that
`the stipulation in its Reply was intended to estop Petitioner to the same
`extent as Mylan as a result of the Mylan IPR. See Paper 16, 2. We granted
`Petitioner such authorization. See id. at 3; Ex. 1099 (Proposed Stipulation).
`We also authorized Petitioner to file the District Court Order in the
`Delaware Litigation moving the trial date to December 9, 2024. See Paper
`16, 3; Ex. 1098.
`
`Director Vidal 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
`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. Petitioner has filed such a stipulation. Reply 2
`(“Petitioners stipulate that, if instituted, they will not pursue in the parallel
`district court proceeding the same grounds as in the Petition or any grounds
`that could have reasonably been raised therein”). Therefore, we will not
`exercise our discretion to deny the Petition.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`We also find that with the change of the district court trial date to over
`
`two months after the current statutory due date for the Mylan IPR, the Mylan
`IPR should be completed before a trial in the district court begins. See
`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.10
`
`For the reasons set forth above, we decline to exercise our discretion
`to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`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:
`This Petition is substantively identical to Mylan’s
`petition filed in IPR2023-00724, except for any
`Petitioners-specific information provided consistent with
`requirements related to mandatory notices. For example, this
`Petition asserts the same grounds of unpatentability of the ’462
`patent upon which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board already
`instituted review in the Mylan IPR. Accordingly, there exists a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in
`
`10 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. 22 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
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrating unpatentability of at least one of the Challenged
`Claims, and Petitioners respectfully seek to join the Mylan IPR.
`Pet. 1. Petitioner also states:
`
`In support of these grounds for unpatentability, Petitioners
`submit the Declarations of Drs. Bantle, Jusko, and Dalby and
`relies on the Exhibits identified in the concurrently filed Listing
`of Exhibits. Solely to preserve its right to rely on expert
`testimony in the event that . . . Mylan settles, Petitioner further
`relies on the accompanying Declarations of Dr. Randall M.
`Zusman (Ex. 1091), Dr. John P. Fruehauf (Ex. 1093), and Dr.
`Maureen D. Donovan (Ex. 1095), each of which adopts the
`opinions set forth by Drs. Bantle, Jusko, and Dalby,
`respectively, in connection with the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`Pet. 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,
`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
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`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; 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. 3–4.
`Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and substantially identical
`declarant testimony to that submitted by Mylan. See Mot. 3–4. Petitioner
`states:
`
`While the instant Petition includes the declarations of
`Drs. Randall M. Zusman, John P. Fruehauf, and Maureen D.
`Donovan (“DRL Declarants”), these declarations present[]
`substantially identical expert testimony to that put forth by
`Drs. John Bantle, William J. Jusko, and Paul Dalby (“Myland
`Declarant(s)”) in the Mylan IPR. If Mylan allows [Petitioner]
`to use the Mylan Declarants, then [Petitioner] will withdraw the
`DRL Declarants, and rely only on the Mylan Declarants.
`Mot. 2, 4. If Mylan does not agree to allow Petitioner to retain the Mylan
`Declarants, Petitioner asserts it “would agree to withdraw the DRL
`Declarants if the Mylan Declarants have already been deposed based on their
`declarations in the Mylan IPR and the deposition transcripts have been made
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`of record,” and Petitioner would rely on those declarations and testimony of
`the Mylan Declarants. Mot. 5.
`The Petition is substantively identical to the petition filed by Mylan.
`See supra Section III; Mot. 2–4. 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. 6. 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) DRL 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, DRL will abide by
`37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between the Patent
`Owner and Mylan.
`
`Mot. 7.
`
`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 12.
`
`Based on our review of Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and the
`parties’ stipulations as set forth in Paper 12, we determine that joinder with
`the Mylan IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we
`grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00009
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Jovial Wong
`Scott Border
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLC
`jwong@winston.com
`sborder@winston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jon Baughman
`Megan Raymond
`GROOMBRIDGE, WU, BAUGHMAN & STONE LLP
`steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com
`megan.raymond@groombridgewu.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., DR. REDDY’S
`LABORATORIES, INC., and DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2023-0072411
`Patent 10,335,462 B2
`____________
`
`
`11 IPR2024-00009 (Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories) has been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
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
