Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 10
` Entered: April 8, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRANSGENE and BIOINVENT INTERNATIONAL AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REPLIMUNE LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`_______________
`
`Before ERIC W. HAWTHORNE, Supervisory Trial Paralegal
`
`ERRATUM
`
`The Conduct of the Proceeding order Granting-In-Part Petitioner’s Request to
`File a Pre-Institution Reply 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 (Order), issued on April 6, 2022, omitted
`electronic service to Patent Owner’s counsel at page 3. A corrected copy is attached
`to this erratum. All deadlines from the April 6, 2022, Order remain unchanged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRANSGENE and BIOINVENT INTERNATIONAL AB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`REPLIMUNE LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`Granting-In-Part Petitioner’s Request to File a Pre-Institution Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`On April 6, 2022, we held a conference call with counsel for the
`parties and the judges on this panel participating. A transcript of the call
`will be made of record in this proceeding. The purpose of the call was to
`discuss Petitioner’s request to file a pre-institution Reply to address certain
`arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. In particular,
`Petitioner seeks a Reply to address: the legal effect of Patent Owner’s
`statutory disclaimer of challenged claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–26, Patent
`Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Patent
`Owner’s arguments related to burdens and certain evidentiary showings
`concerning Petitioner’s reliance on “common knowledge,” and Petitioner’s
`request for a refund for additional claim fees paid for the disclaimed claims.
`As explained during the conference call, the standard for authorizing a
`pre-institution reply is good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c). Having
`considered the parties’ respective positions, we determine that good cause
`exists for Petitioner to file a Reply limited to the § 325(d) issue. At this
`point, we do not authorize further briefing on the other issues requested by
`Petitioner.
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a pre-institution Reply
`limited to addressing the § 325(d) argument raised in Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Reply; such a Reply shall be limited to 5 pages and filed no later
`than April 15, 2022; no further evidence is authorized to be submitted with
`Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Erin Dunston
`Travis Bliss
`Aaron Pereira
`Stephany Small
`PANITCH SCWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
`edunston@panitchlaw.com
`tbliss@panitchlaw.com
`ssmall@panitchlaw.com
`apereira@panitchlaw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Dion Bregman
`Alexander Stein
`Christopher Betti
`Kelly Plummer
`Maria Doukas
`Guylaine Hache
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`alexander.stein@morganlewis.com
`christopher.betti@morganlewis.com
`kelly.plummer@morganlewis.com
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`guylaine.hache@morganlewis.com
`
`3
`
`
