UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
`AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 to Jensen
`Issue Date: July 2, 2019
`Title: Use of Long-Acting GLP-1 Peptides
`
`_______________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2024-00107
`
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
`AND SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVO NORDISK A/S,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 to Jensen
`Issue Date: July 2, 2019
`Title: Use of Long-Acting GLP-1 Peptides
`
`_______________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review IPR2024-00107
`
`_______________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107 (U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462)
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`I.
`
`A STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc.
`
`(“Sun” or “Petitioners”) submit, concurrently with this motion, a petition for inter
`
`partes review (the “Sun Petition”) of claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462
`
`(“the ’462 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned to Novo Nordisk A/S (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Sun respectfully requests joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b) of the concurrently filed Petition with a pending inter partes review filed
`
`by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novo
`
`Nordisk A/S, IPR2023-00724 (the “Mylan IPR”). Joinder is appropriate because
`
`Sun’s request is timely and it will promote an efficient and consistent resolution of
`
`the validity of a single patent and will not prejudice any of the parties to the Mylan
`
`IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`On March 16, 2023, Mylan filed a petition for inter partes review challenging
`
`claims 1–10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462 (“the ’462 patent”), which was assigned
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00724. On October 4, 2023, the Board instituted review of claims
`
`1–10 on five grounds: (1) Claims 1–3 of the ’462 patent as anticipated by WO421;
`
`(2) Claims 1–3 of the ’462 patent as anticipated by Lovshin; (3) Claims 1–10 of the
`
`’462 patent as obvious over WO421 and the ’424 Publication; (4) Claims 1–10 of
`
`the ’462 patent as obvious over WO537 and Lovshin; and (5) Claims 1–10 of the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`’462 patent as obvious over NCT657, NCT733, and the ’424 Publication. IPR2023-
`
`00724, Paper 10.
`
`Today, concurrent with the instant motion for joinder, Sun filed the Sun
`
`Petition, Case No. IPR2024-00107, that is substantially the same as the Mylan IPR:
`
`it involves the same patent, same claims, same grounds of unpatentability, and the
`
`same evidence (including the same prior art combinations) instituted in the Mylan
`
`IPR.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Board has authority to join as a party any person who properly files a
`
`petition
`
`for
`
`inter partes
`
`review
`
`to an
`
`instituted
`
`inter partes
`
`review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of
`
`institution of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b). In deciding whether to grant a motion for joinder, the Board considers
`
`several factors including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the
`
`party to be joined has presented any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact,
`
`if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how
`
`briefing and discovery may be simplified. See, e.g., Hyundai Motor Co. v. Am.
`
`Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-01543, Paper 11 at 3 (Oct. 24, 2014); Macronix
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Int’l Co. v. Spansion, IPR2014-00898, Paper 15 at 4 (Aug. 13, 2014) (quoting
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (April 24, 2013)).
`
`B.
`
`The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors considered by the Board weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`1.
`
`Joinder Is Appropriate
`
`Joinder with the Mylan IPR is appropriate because the 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. As such, the Sun
`
`Petition does “not present issues that might complicate or delay” Mylan’s IPR. See
`
`Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Techs & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Paper 19
`
`(PTAB July 9, 2014).
`
`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. Given Sun’s
`
`reliance on Mylan’s IPR Petition and Declarants, the primary difference between
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Sun’s and Mylan’s Petitions are the sections on Real Party-In-Interest, Related
`
`Matters, and Counsel, which have been appropriately updated.
`
`The Board has previously acknowledged that such concessions on the part of
`
`a party seeking to join are sufficient to minimize the impact on the original
`
`proceeding. Sawai USA, Inc. v. Biogen MA, Inc., IPR2019-00789, Motion for
`
`Joinder, Paper 2, at 4-5 (Mar. 5, 2019); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`
`IPR2016-01343, Mot. for Joinder, Paper 3, at 8 (July 1, 2016) (offering same
`
`procedure); Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Janssen Oncology, Inc., IPR2016-01317,
`
`Mot. for Joinder, Paper 3, at 6-7 (June 29, 2016) (same); Argentum Pharms. LLC, v.
`
`Cosmo Techs., Ltd., IPR2016-01317, Mot. for Joinder, Paper 3, at 4-5 (Oct. 20,
`
`2017) (same). Further, the declarations of the Sun Declarants submitted in support
`
`of the present Petition present substantively identical 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.
`
`Even if, despite its best efforts with Mylan, Sun were required to proceed with
`
`its own Declarants, there would be no impact on the Board’s ability to complete its
`
`review in a timely manner, in light of the substantially identical testimony between
`
`the Sun Declarants and the Mylan Declarants. In such a situation, there would be at
`
`most a modest impact on the Patent Owner given that little additional preparation
`
`would be needed for the deposition of the Sun Declarants beyond that required for
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`the depositions of the Mylan Declarants. Still further, in the event that Mylan does
`
`not agree to allow Sun to rely on the Mylan Declarants, Sun 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. In that case, Sun would rely on the declarations and testimony of the Mylan
`
`Declarants. Teva, IPR2016-01343, Mot. for Joinder, Paper 3, at 9, n.2 (offering the
`
`same concessions).
`
`In view of the above, joinder will promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of patentability issues, including the determination of validity of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’462 patent. For example, a final written decision on the
`
`validity of the ’462 patent has the potential to minimize issues and potentially
`
`resolve any litigation altogether with respect to the ’462 patent.
`
`2.
`
`No New Grounds Are Presented
`
`The Sun Petition does not present any new ground of unpatentability. As
`
`above, the Petition presents for review only grounds from the petition in the Mylan
`
`IPR that have been instituted. The present Petition is based on the same prior art
`
`analysis submitted by Mylan, and the Sun Declarants’ testimony in support of these
`
`grounds is substantively identical to that of the Mylan Declarants in the Mylan IPR,
`
`which further weighs in favor of joinder. See, e.g., Hyundai, IPR2014-01543, Paper
`
`11 at 2–4; Sony Corp. of Am. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495,
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Paper 13 at 5–9 (Sep. 16, 2013); Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17 at 6–10 (Jul. 29, 2013); Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 4–10 (June 20, 2013).
`
`Because the Sun Petition raises no new grounds of unpatentability than those
`
`already presented in the Mylan IPR, joinder will have no substantial effect on the
`
`parties or have a negative impact on the schedule of the Mylan IPR, much less
`
`prevent the Board from issuing a final written decision in a timely manner. See LG
`
`v. Memory Integrity, LLC., IPR2015-01353, Paper 11 at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015) (granting
`
`IPR and motion for joinder where “joinder should not necessitate any additional
`
`briefing or discovery from Patent Owner”). Sun will adhere to all applicable
`
`deadlines set in the Scheduling Order for the Mylan IPR.
`
`Moreover, as discussed below, Sun is willing to limit its participation in the
`
`proceeding as a “silent understudy” to Mylan, only assuming an active role in the
`
`event of termination of Mylan as a party. Sun does not anticipate that any extension
`
`of the trial schedule will be required as a result of joinder.
`
`3.
`
`Discovery and Briefing Will Be Simplified
`
`As a “silent understudy,” Sun agrees that, if joined, the following conditions
`
`will apply so long as Mylan remains an active party, as previously approved by the
`
`Board in other joinder circumstances:
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`(a) All filings by Sun in the joined proceeding will 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. See DRL Pharms. Inc. v.
`
`Novartis AG, IPR2015-00268, Paper 17 at 5–6 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2015) (finding the
`
`same proposed limitations “are consistent with the ‘understudy’ role that Petitioner
`
`agrees to assume, as well as Petitioner’s assertion that its presence would not require
`
`introducing any additional arguments, briefing, or discovery.”). Sun is also willing
`
`to abide by any additional conditions that the Board deems appropriate.
`
`4.
`
`No Prejudice to Patent Owner
`
`Joinder of Petitioner to the Mylan IPR will not create any additional burden
`
`on the Patent Owner. The Patent Owner need not expend any additional resources
`
`above and beyond those required in the current Mylan IPR. Moreover, joinder
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`eliminates the need for the Patent Owner to participate in multiple, staggered inter
`
`partes review proceedings instituted upon identical grounds of unpatentability.1
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Sun respectfully requests that its Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of claims 1–10 of the ’462 patent be granted on the same grounds
`
`and for the same reasons discussed in the Institution Decision of IPR2023-00724,
`
`and that this proceeding be joined therewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /s/ Brian Sodikoff
`Brian Sodikoff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The argument that joinder may theoretically frustrate settlement between Mylan
`
`and Patent Owner is not a basis to deny joinder because that same possibility exists
`
`in every joinder situation. Global Foundries U.S. Inc. v . Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1,
`
`IPR2017-00925 and IPR2017-00926, Paper 13 at 10 (June 9, 2017).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107 (U.S. Patent No. 10,335,462)
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, I certify that I caused to be
`
`served a true and correct copy of the foregoing: PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER, by Federal Express (or equivalent) Next Business Day Delivery on this
`
`day on the Patent Owner’s correspondence address of record for the subject patent
`
`as follows:
`
`Novo Nordisk Inc.
`Intellectual Property Department
`800 Scudders Mill Road
`Plainsboro, NJ 08536
`
`Courtesy copies of the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,335,462 and any accompanying exhibits and materials have been sent by Federal
`
`Express (or equivalent) Next Business Day Delivery on this day to Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel of record as follows:
`
`J. Steven Baughman
`Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP
`801 17th Street, NW, Suite 1050
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`with courtesy copies sent via electronic means to:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`J. Steven Baughman at steve.baughman@groombridgewu.com;
`
`Megan Raymond at megan.raymond@groombridgewu.com; and
`
`Novo-Semaglutide-IPR@groombridgewu.com.
`
`
`
`A courtesy copy of the foregoing has been sent by Federal Express (or
`
`equivalent) Next Business Day Delivery on this day to Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc.’s counsel of record as follows:
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2024-00107
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Brandon M. White
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th Street, NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`with courtesy copies by electronic means to:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Brandon M. White: White-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Emily J. Greb: Greb-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Courtney Prochnow, PhD: Prochnow-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Christopher D. Jones: Jones-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Jonathan I. Tietz, PhD: Tietz-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew A. Lembo: Lembo-ptab@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`
`A courtesy copy of has been sent by Federal Express (or equivalent) Next
`
`Business Day Delivery on this day to Doctor Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.’s counsel
`
`of record as follows:
`
`Jovial Wong
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`1901 L Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`with courtesy copies by electronic means to:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Jovial Wong: jwong@winston.com
`
`Scott Border: sborder@winston.com
`
`Sharon Lin McIntosh: slin@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 2, 2023
`
` /s/ Brian Sodikoff
`Brian Sodikoff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
