throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`---------------------------------------
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC and
`SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and
`AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Patent Owners.
`------------------------------------
`
`Cases IPR2016-00353 (Patent 7,691,963 B2),
`IPR2016-00354 (Patent 8,445,647 B2), and
`IPR2016-00355 (Patent 8,951,962 B2)1
`
`----------------------------------
`
`Filed: October 6, 2016
`
`JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE FOR SETTLEMENT
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 317
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`
`heading.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00353 (U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963)
`Case IPR2016-00354 (U.S. Patent No. 8,445,647)
`Case IPR2016-00355 (U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962)
`
`
`PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
`
`I.
`
`
`
`(“Sanofi”) and Patent Owners AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Amylin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“AstraZeneca”) (Sanofi and AstraZeneca collectively
`
`identified as “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, jointly request
`
`termination of the above-captioned inter partes review proceedings of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,691,963, 8,445,647, and 8,951,962 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a), 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.72, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The parties have fully and finally resolved
`
`the dispute between them and entered into a Settlement Agreement effective
`
`September 28, 2016 (“Agreement”) formally settling the dispute.
`
`
`
`On October 5, 2016, the Parties emailed the Board to request the Board’s
`
`authorization to file a joint motion to terminate the above-captioned inter partes
`
`review proceedings. The Parties also sought the Board’s authorization to file with
`
`the motion to terminate a request to treat the written Agreement as business
`
`confidential information. Later on October 5, 2016, the Board authorized the
`
`Parties to file both a motion to terminate and a request to treat the agreement as
`
`business confidential information.
`
`II. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION
`
`
`
`Generally, the Board expects that a proceeding will terminate after the filing
`
`of a settlement agreement. See, e.g., Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00353 (U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963)
`Case IPR2016-00354 (U.S. Patent No. 8,445,647)
`Case IPR2016-00355 (U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962)
`
`Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Board authorized filing of the instant
`
`motion on October 5, 2016. Guidance as to the content of a motion to terminate is
`
`provided in IPR2015-00293, Paper No. 7. There, the Board indicated that a joint
`
`motion, such as this one, should (a) include a brief explanation as to why
`
`termination is appropriate; (b) identify all parties in any related litigation involving
`
`the patent at issue; (c) identify any related proceedings currently before the Office;
`
`and (d) discuss specifically the current status of each such related litigation or
`
`proceeding with respect to each party to the litigation or proceeding. Id. at 2. This
`
`motion satisfies each of the above requirements and is accompanied by the
`
`Agreement made in connection with termination of these proceedings, as required
`
`by 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 (b).
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Brief Explanation of Why Termination is Appropriate
`
`Termination is appropriate because these proceedings are in their very early
`
`stages: Patent Owners have not filed their Patent Owners’ Responses to the
`
`Petitions, Petitioners have not filed their Replies to the Patent Owners’ Responses,
`
`the Parties have not filed motions to exclude, oral argument has not been held, the
`
`Board has not decided the merits of the proceeding, and a final written decision has
`
`not been issued. By virtue of the Agreement, the dispute between the Parties has
`
`been resolved, including the Parties’ related litigation. Per the Agreement, the
`
`Parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice of the related litigation on
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00353 (U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963)
`Case IPR2016-00354 (U.S. Patent No. 8,445,647)
`Case IPR2016-00355 (U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962)
`
`October 3, 2016 and the Court approved entry of the stipulated dismissal with
`
`prejudice on October 5, 2016. There are no other pending cases involving U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,691,963, 8,445,647, or 8,951,962.
`
`B. All Parties in Any Pending Related Litigation Involving the
`
`Patent at Issue
`
`In addition, Petitioners were the named Plaintiffs in the above-referenced
`
`
`
`
`
`
`litigation and Patent Owners were the named Defendants. That litigation has been
`
`dismissed in its entirety. No future litigation amongst the Parties or their affiliates
`
`involving the U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963, 8,445,647, or 8,951,962 is contemplated.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings Currently Before the Office
`
`There are a total of three related IPRs before the PTAB - Cases IPR2016-
`
`00353 (Patent 7,691,963 B2), IPR2016-00354 (Patent 8,445,647 B2), and
`
`IPR2016-00355 (Patent 8,951,962 B2). The Parties are seeking to dismiss all three
`
`of these IPRs.
`
`III. Agreement
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F. R. § 42.74(b), the Agreement is
`
`in writing, and a true and correct copy is being filed concurrently herewith as
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00353 (U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963)
`Case IPR2016-00354 (U.S. Patent No. 8,445,647)
`Case IPR2016-00355 (U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962)
`
`Exhibit A.2 The parties are also filing concurrently herewith a joint request under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to treat the Agreement as business
`
`confidential information to be kept separate from the file of the involved patents.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For all these reasons, the Parties respectfully request termination of the Inter
`
`Partes Review of Cases IPR2016-00353 (Patent 7,691,963 B2), IPR2016-00354
`
`(Patent 8,445,647 B2), and IPR2016-00355 (Patent 8,951,962 B2).
`
`Respectfully submitted this 6 day of October, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul H. Berghoff
`Paul H. Berghoff
`Reg. No. 30,243
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ David I. Berl
`David I. Berl
`Reg. No. 72,751
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 The Agreement is being filed via the PTAB E2E (End to End) system with access
`
`to the “Parties and Board only.”
`
`

`
`Case IPR2016-00353 (U.S. Patent No. 7,691,963)
`Case IPR2016-00354 (U.S. Patent No. 8,445,647)
`Case IPR2016-00355 (U.S. Patent No. 8,951,962)
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 6, 2016, a copy of the foregoing document
`
`
`
`was filed using the PTAB E2E (End to End), which will automatically send email
`
`notification of such filing to the following attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul H. Berghoff
`Paul H. Berghoff
`Reg. No. 30,243
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David Berl
`dberl@wc.com
`
`Dov Grossman
`dgrossman@wc.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 6, 2016

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

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.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket