`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 18
`
`
` Entered: 3 February 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS V LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`Before FRED E. McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a)
`An email dated 2 February 2016 (1:00 p.m.) from Biogen (Patent
`
`Owner) has been received by the Board.
`In relevant part the email reads:
`Patent Owner Biogen MA Inc. requests a conference call in
`IPR2015-01993 to seek authorization to submit a sur-reply to
`Petitioner’s reply [Paper 17] to the preliminary response [Paper
`11] filed on January 28, 2016.
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner has indicated that Petitioner will oppose
`this request.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is generally available for a conference call anytime
`Wednesday-Friday of this week. Petitioner is available anytime
`this week except for Wednesday from 11:30-12:30 or 2:30-3:30.
`
`On 2 February 2016 (2:24 p.m.), the Board emailed counsel informing
`
`them that:
`
`Counsel: No sur-reply is authorized. No conference call is
`needed.
`
`Authorization of whether to authorize a sur-reply is discretionary with
`
`the Board. If a sur-reply is authorized, then a further paper from Petitioner
`would need to be considered because generally a party with the burden of
`proof (Petitioner in this instance) is entitled to the final word.
`
`The Petition, Preliminary Response, and Reply are sufficient to enable
`the Board to make an informed decision on whether to institute an inter
`partes review in this case.
`Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner believes Petitioner may
`have raised a “new issue” in its Reply, all are advised that the Board can
`determine sua sponte whether an inappropriate new issue has been raised.
`Lastly, in the event an inter partes review is instituted (a matter on
`which no views are expressed at this time), Patent Owner will have a full
`opportunity to address appropriate issues in its merits opposition.
`
`Upon consideration of the email requesting a conference call to obtain
`leave to file a sur-reply, and for the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that the request for a conference call is denied.
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the request for leave to file a sur-reply is
`denied.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`
`
` cc:
`PETITIONER:
`
`Robert W. Hahl
`Robert Mihail
`John K. Pike
`NEIFELD IP LAW
`rhahl@neifeld.com
`rmihail@neifeld.com
`jkpike@neifeld.com
`general@neifeld.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Flibbert
`Maureen D. Queler
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`michael.flibbert@finnegan.com
`maureen.queler@finnegan.com
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
