Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 12
`Entered: August 15, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PFIZER INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`Before HYUN J. IUNG, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`
`JANIES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Instituting Inter Partes Review and Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 USC. §§ 314, 315(c)
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pfizer Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`institution of an inter partes review of claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of
`
`US. Patent No. 8,603,044 B2 (Ex. 1002, “the ’044 patent”). Concurrently
`
`with its Petition, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder seeking to join Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sanofi-Averztis Deutschland GmbH, Case IPR2018-
`
`01675 (the “Mylan IPR”). Paper 3, 1.
`
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (“Patent Owner”) waived its
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 9, 1; see also Paper 8, 1 (stating “Sanofi has
`
`also concurrently filed a waiver of its Preliminary Response in the above
`
`Pfizer IPRs”). Patent Owner filed a Response to Petitioner’s Motions for
`
`Joinder. Paper 8. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a Reply in Support of
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.22, 42.122(b). Paper 10.
`
`For the reasons below, we institute inter partes review of challenged
`
`claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the ’044 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2018-01675. In view of the
`
`‘
`
`joinder, we terminate this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Related Proceedings
`
`The parties indicate that the ’044 patent has been asserted in Sanof-
`
`Aventis US. LLC v. Mylan GmbH, No. 2:17—cv-09105-SRC—CLW (D.N.J.);
`
`Sanofz-Aventis US. LLC v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, No. 1-16-cv-
`
`00812—RGA-1VIPT (D. Del.); Sanofi-Aventis US. LLC v. Eli Lily and Co.,
`
`No. 1:14-cv-00113 (D. Del.); Sanofi-Aventis US. LLC v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`No. 1:14-cv-00884 (D. Del); and Sanofi-Aventis US. LLC v. Mylan GmbH,
`
`No. 1:17-cv—00181 (ND. W.Va.). Pet. 1—2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`The parties also indicate that the ’044 patent is challenged in Cases
`
`IPR2018-01675, IPR2018-01676, and IPR2019—00978. Pet. 1—2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`The parties additionally indicate that patents related to the ’044 patent
`
`are challenged in Cases IPR2018-01670, IPR2018-01677, IPR2018-01678,
`
`IPR2018—01679, IPR2018-01680, IPR2018—01682, IPR2018-01684,
`
`IPR2018-01696, IPR2019-00122, IPR2019-00979, IPR2019-00980,
`
`IPR2019-00981, IPR2019-00982, IPR2019-00987, IPR2019-01022, and
`
`IPR2019-01023. Pet. 2; Paper 6, 2—4. The parties further identify related
`
`patent applications and patents. Pet. 2—4; Paper 6, 4—6.
`
`B.
`
`Real Parties in Interest
`
`Petitioner identifies itself and Hospira, Inc. as real parties in interest.
`
`Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies itself, Sanofi-Aventis US. LLC, and Sanofi
`
`Winthrop Industrie as real parties in interest. Paper 6, 1.
`
`C.
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner identifies the following reference as prior art in the asserted
`
`ground of unpatentability:
`
`US. Patent No. 6,221,046 B1, issued April 24, 2001 (Ex. 1013,
`
`“Burroughs”).
`
`In support of its challenge, Petitioner provides a Declaration of
`
`Mr. Charles E. Clemens (Ex. 1011). See Paper 3, 3 (the “opinions set forth
`
`in Mr. Clemens’s declaration are nearly identical to the opinions set forth in
`
`the declaration of Mr. Karl R. Leinsing filed in the Mylan IPR (Mylan IPR
`
`Ex. 1011)”).
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`D.
`
`Asserted Ground
`
`Petitioner asserts that Burroughs would have rendered the subject
`
`matter ofclaims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Pet. 5, 21—49.
`
`111.
`
`INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`The Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Mylan IPR.
`
`Compare Pet. with Mylan IPR (Paper 2); see also Paper 3, 3 (stating that
`
`“the same claims of the ’044 patent are obvious over the same grounds and
`
`for substantially the same reasons set forth in the Mylan IPR” and that “the
`
`Petition does not contain any additional arguments or evidence (except for
`reliance on a different expert, as noted above) in support of the
`
`unpatentability of claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the ’044 patent”). For
`
`substantially the same reasons discussed in the Institution Decision in the
`
`Mylan IPR, which we incorporate expressly herein, Petitioner demonstrates
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the
`
`challenged claims of the ’044 patent. Mylan IPR, Paper 28.
`
`Accordingly, we institute inter partes review of claims 11, 14, 15, 18,
`
`and 19 of the ’044 patent based on the asserted ground of unpatentability set
`
`forth in the Petition. SAS Inst, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359—60
`
`(2018). At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`
`determination as to the unpatentability of any challenged claim or any
`
`underlying factual or legal issue.
`
`IV. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`Petitioner contends that its Motion for Joinder is timely “because it is
`
`submitted within one month of the date the Mylan IPR was instituted.”
`
`Paper 3, 4.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`“Any request for joinder must be filed .
`
`.
`
`. no later than one month
`
`after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). On May 2, 2019, Petitioner filed the
`
`Motion for Joinder requesting to join the Mylan IPR. The Board instituted
`an inter partes review in the Mylan IPR on April 2, 2019. Petitioner
`
`requested joinder no later than one month after the institution date of the
`
`Mylan IPR. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, therefore, is timely.
`
`Acting under the designation of the Director, we have discretion to
`
`determine whether to join a party to an instituted inter partes review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. §42.122(a). We may
`
`join as a party to [an instituted] inter partes review any person
`who properly files a petition under section 311 that .
`.
`. after
`receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the
`expiration of the time for filing such a response .
`.
`. warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We have explained that a motion for joinder should:
`
`(1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact,
`
`if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and
`
`(4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified.
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softvz'ew LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB
`
`Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`
`As for reasons why joinder is appropriate and identifyng any new
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition, Petitioner contends that it
`
`asserts the same grounds as in the Mylan IPR, presents nearly identical
`
`arguments, and relies on substantially the same evidence. Paper 3, 5—6.
`
`Petitioner also contends that the Board will be determining the same issues
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`and joinder would be the most efficient and economical manner in which to
`
`proceed. Id.
`
`Regarding what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review, Petitioner argues that joinder would not
`
`affect the schedule in the Mylan IPR because joinder “will ‘not add any
`
`procedural complications or delay the progress of resolving the substantive
`
`issues already pending in the Mylan IPR,” Petitioner “will coordinate with
`
`the Mylan IPR petitioner,” and Petitioner “agrees to take an understudy role
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. if joinder is granted.” Id. at 6.
`
`Lastly, with respect to how briefing and discovery may be simplified,
`
`Petitioner argues that joinder would avoid the filing of “largely duplicative
`
`briefs and other papers” and that “Petitioner will maintain a secondary role
`
`in the proceeding, ifjoined.” 1d. at 6—7.
`
`Patent Owner responds that it “does not oppose Pfizer’s Motion for
`
`Joinder” and “agrees that judicial economy will be served by joining Pfizer
`
`to the Mylan .
`
`.
`
`. IPR[].” Paper 8, 2—5. Although Patent Owner proposed an
`
`extension of the trial schedule in its Response to Petitioner’s Motion (id. at
`
`4—5), Petitioner subsequently explains in reply that the parties agreed that if
`
`joinder is granted, Petitioner would withdraw the declaration of
`Mr. Clemens and rely on the declaration and testimony of Mr. Leinsing such
`
`that an extension of the trial schedule would not be required. Paper 10, 1—2.
`
`Petitioner also represents that the petitioner in the Mylan IPR does not
`
`oppose joinder if there is no change to the trial schedule. Id.
`
`In view of Petitioner’s representations and the parties’ agreement,
`
`Petitioner has persuaded us that joinder is appropriate. We, therefore, grant
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The Petition in the Mylan IPR was filed on September 10, 2018. See
`
`Mylan IPR, Paper 8. In an inter partes review based on a petition filed prior
`
`to November 13, 2018, “[a] claim in an unexpired patent .
`
`.
`
`. shall be given
`
`its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (upholding the use ofthe
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard). Accordingly, the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard applies to the Mylan IPR.
`
`The Petition in this case was filed on May 2, 2019. Paper 4. The
`
`claim construction standard applied in an inter partes review when a petition
`
`is filed on or after November 13, 2018, is the federal court claim
`
`construction standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See
`
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340,
`
`51,344 (Oct. 11, 2018). Accordingly, absent joinder, the federal court claim
`
`construction standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b) applies
`
`to this proceeding.
`
`During a conference on July 25, 2019, with all involved parties,
`
`Petitioner and Patent Owner each indicated that, if the Motion for Joinder is
`
`granted, there would be no issues or objections to continuing with the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard of claim construction in the
`
`joined proceeding. Paper 11, 2; see also Mylan IPR, Ex. 1043, 5:19—6:14
`
`(asking if there were any issues with continuing with the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard in the joined proceeding and Petitioner and Patent
`
`Owner each indicating no objections or issues with continuing with that
`
`

`

`IPR2019—00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`standard). Thus, we will construe any claim term that requires construction
`
`according to the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. If, however,
`
`any party contends that a claim term should be given a different
`
`interpretation from the broadest reasonable interpretation under the federal
`
`court claim construction standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282(b), that party may request authorization to file an additional brief in
`
`support of its contentions.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`We institute inter partes review of claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 of the
`
`’044 patent based on the asserted ground of unpatentability set forth in the
`
`Petition. We grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to
`
`IPR2018—01675. In view of this joinder, we terminate the present
`
`proceeding in accordance with 37 CPR. § 42.72.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`VII. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review of claims 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,603,044 B2 is
`
`instituted with respect to the sole ground set forth in the Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(0) and
`
`37 CPR. § 42.122(a), Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is granted, and that
`
`Petitioner is joined as a petitioner in IPR201 8-01675;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in view of the joinder, this proceeding,
`
`IPR2019-00977, is terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and that all further
`
`filings shall be made only in IPR2018-01675;
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted ground of unpatentability on
`
`which the Board instituted inter partes review in IPR2018-01675 is
`
`unchanged and remains the only instituted ground;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the claim construction standard of
`
`IPR2018—01675 is applied to the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, as agreed to by all the parties, Petitioner
`
`will no longer rely upon the declaration of Mr. Clemens and will, instead,
`
`rely on the declaration and testimony of Mr. Leinsing in IPR2018-01676;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in IPR2018-01675,
`
`and any modifications thereto, shall govern the schedule of the joined
`
`proceeding;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2018-01675, Petitioner will file
`
`each paper, except for any paper that does not involve the other party, as a
`
`single, consolidated filing with Mylan, subject to the page limits set forth in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify such filing as a consolidated filing;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that for any consolidated filing, if Petitioner
`
`wishes to file an additional paper to address points of disagreement with
`
`Mylan, Petitioner must request authorization from the Board to file a motion
`
`for an additional paper or pages;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall collectively designate
`
`attorneys with Mylan to conduct the cross-examination of any witness
`
`produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness produced by
`
`Mylan and Petitioner, within the timeframes set forth in 37 CPR. § 42.53(c)
`
`or agreed to by the parties;
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall collectively designate
`
`attorneys with Mylan to present at the oral hearing, if requested and
`
`scheduled, in a consolidated argument;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2018-01675 shall
`
`be changed to reflect joinder of Petitioner in accordance with the attached
`
`example; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record ofIPR2018—_01675.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jovial Wong
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`PfizerIPRs@winston.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser
`
`Anish R. Desai
`
`Sudip K. Kundu
`Adrian C. Percer
`
`Brian C. Chang
`William S. Ansley
`Matthew D. Sieger
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`Sanofi.IPR.Service@weil.com
`e1izabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`sudip.kundu@weil.com
`adrian.percer@weil.com
`brian.chang@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00977
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and PFIZER INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2018-01675l
`
`Patent 8,603,044 B2
`
`1 Pfizer Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-OO977, has been joined as
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`12
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge

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.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket