`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00048
`Patent No. 10,195,214 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214
`Teva respectfully submits this authorized Reply to address the argument in
`
`Corcept’s POPR that institution would be “inefficient” because a district-court case
`
`involving the ’214 patent “is progressing toward...trial in the summer of 2020.”
`
`POPR, 1, 5-9. Corcept is incorrect. As explained below, the district-court case does
`
`not justify denying institution because the district court is unlikely to issue a final
`
`decision on the validity of the ’214 patent until well into 2021 (long after the Board
`
`would issue a Final Written Decision in this proceeding).
`
`As Corcept admits in a footnote, Corcept sued Teva on the ’214 patent only
`
`about seven months ago, in February 2019. Id., 6 n.1. That lawsuit was then
`
`consolidated with an ongoing case involving three other patents (none of which is
`
`in the same family as the ’214 patent). The consolidated case is entering claim
`
`construction, with the parties set to file opening Markman briefs in October and to
`
`propose a Markman hearing date on December 30, 2019. TEVA1063, 2. That is the
`
`last deadline on the schedule. Contrary to Corcept’s argument, POPR, 7, the court
`
`has not scheduled a Markman hearing, much less a trial. TEVA1063, 2.
`
`This schedule was entered by the district court at Corcept’s urging. Teva
`
`proposed (and would still desire) a much more expedited schedule, but the Court
`
`adopted Corcept’s proposal instead. See TEVA1064, 2-3. Moreover, under
`
`Corcept’s proposal, fact discovery will not end until the “[l]ater of Markman
`
`decision or March 30, 2020,” with expert reports due 60 days later, responsive
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214
`expert reports due 60 days after that, reply expert reports due 30 days after that,
`
`and expert discovery closed 45 days after that. Id., 3. If Corcept has its way, then,
`
`expert discovery will not end until, at the earliest, mid-October, and any district-
`
`court decision would likely come well into 2021, long after the FWD. Institution is
`
`appropriate under those circumstances, particularly given the strong showing of
`
`unpatentability set forth in Teva’s petition. See Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. Sanofi-
`
`Aventis Deutscheland GmbH, IPR2018-01682, Paper 19 at 16-17 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 3,
`
`2019) (declining to deny petition in view of parallel district-court action because
`
`district court had not set a trial date); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Immersion Corp.,
`
`IPR2018-01500, Paper 10 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B Apr. 2, 2019) (declining to deny
`
`institution in view of parallel district-court action because the petitioner made
`
`strong showing of unpatentability); Facebook, Inc. v. Search & Soc. Media
`
`Partners, LLC, IPR2018-01622, Paper 8 at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2019)
`
`(declining to deny institution in view of parallel district-court action because “no
`
`claim constructions ha[d] been determined and discovery remain[ed] open”).
`
`The institution decisions cited in Corcept’s POPR (at 7-8) are inapposite. In
`
`those cases, the parallel district-court case was set to proceed to trial months before
`
`a Final Written Decision would issue. See NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex
`
`Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018); Mylan Pharm.,
`
`Inc. v. Bayer Intellectual Prop. GMBH, IPR2018-01143, Paper 13 at 13 (P.T.A.B.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214
`Dec. 3, 2018); E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B.
`
`May 15, 2019). Here, that is not the case. And, in any event, “NHK Spring does not
`
`suggest, much less hold, that inter partes review should be denied under § 314(a)
`
`solely because a district court is scheduled to consider the same validity issues
`
`before the inter partes review would be complete.” Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v.
`
`Ethicon LLC, IPR2018-01703, Paper 7 at 13 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019).
`
`Corcept also suggests that the district-court case may involve preliminary
`
`injunction proceedings prior to the end of the 30-month stay in August 2020. See
`
`POPR, 6-7. Perhaps so; but PI proceedings will not finally resolve the patentability
`
`of the challenged claims. The question at the PI stage is whether the accused
`
`infringer has “raise[d] a ‘substantial question’ concerning validity, enforceability,
`
`or infringement.” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997). A PI-stage decision, then, may not involve validity at all (for example,
`
`if Teva shows a substantial question concerning infringement). And even if it does,
`
`any decision on validity would be only a preliminary determination. See Altana
`
`Pharma AG v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus,
`
`even if PI proceedings occur, final resolution of the validity of the ’214 patent will
`
`still have to await a decision after trial on the merits—a decision that, under
`
`Corcept’s proposed schedule, will not come until well into 2021. Institution will
`
`not be inefficient.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00048
`Patent 10,195,214
`
`Respectfully Submitted
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
` Deborah Sterling, Ph.D.
`Date: September 23, 2019
` Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 62,732
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Petitioner’s
`
`Reply In Support of Petition for Post-Grant Review,” along with Exhibits 1063 and
`
`1064, were served in their entirety upon the Patent Owner on September 23, 2019,
`
`via email to the following individuals:
`
`F. Dominic Cerrito
`Eric C. Stops
`John P. Galanek
`Frank C. Calvosa
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
`johngalanek@quinnemanuel.com
`frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
` Deborah Sterling, Ph.D.
`Date: September 23, 2019
` Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Registration No. 62,732
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`
`