Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 9
`Filed: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, TINA E. HULSE, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) filed a Petition, seeking an
`
`inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,642,556 B2 (“the
`
`’556 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 4 (“Pet”). Along with the Petition, Teva
`
`filed a Motion for Joinder to join this proceeding with Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01129. Paper 3 (“Mot”).
`
`Teva filed the Petition and Motion for Joinder in the present proceeding on
`
`January 6, 2017, within one month after we instituted trial in IPR2016-
`
`01131. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Patent Owner Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”)
`
`filed an opposition to Teva’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 8. Via e-mail
`
`correspondence to the Board on March 30, 2017, Allergan indicated that it
`
`did not intend to file a Preliminary Response to Teva’s Petition. Ex. 3001.
`
`As explained further below, we institute trial on the same grounds as
`
`instituted in IPR2016-01129 and grant Teva’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`In IPR2016-01129, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) challenged
`
`claims 1–20 of the ’556 patent on the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`Ding ’9791
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`Ding ’979 and Sall2
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Claims challenged
`
`1–20
`
`1–20
`
`
`
`1 Ding et al., US 5,474,979, issued Dec. 12, 1995 (Ex. 1006).
`2 Sall et al., Two Multicenter, Randomized Studies of the Efficacy and Safety
`of Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion in Moderate to Severe Dry Eye
`Disease, 107 OPHTHALMOLOGY 631–39 (2000) (Ex. 1007).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`References
`
`Basis
`
`Claims challenged
`
`Ding ’979, Sall, and Glonek3
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`14 and 19
`
`Ding ’979, Sall, and
`Acheampong4
`Ding ’979, Sall, Glonek, and
`Acheampong
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`11, 18, and 20
`
`
`
`19
`
`After considering the Petition and the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response, we instituted trial in IPR2016-01129 on all five grounds.
`
`IPR2016-01129, Paper 8, 25–26.
`
`Teva’s Petition is substantively identical to Mylan’s Petition,
`
`challenging the same claims based on the same art and the same grounds.
`
`Compare IPR2016-01129, Paper 3 with IPR2017-00579, Paper 4. For the
`
`same reasons stated in our Decision on Institution in IPR2016-01129, we
`
`institute trial in this proceeding on the same three grounds. See IPR2016-
`
`01129, Paper 8.
`
`Having determined that institution is appropriate, we now turn to
`
`Teva’s Motion for Joinder. Based on authority delegated to us by the
`
`Director, we have discretion to join an inter partes review to a previously
`
`instituted inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Section 315(c) provides,
`
`in relevant part, that “[i]f the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`
`
`
`3 Glonek et al., US 5,578,586, issued Nov. 26, 1996 (Ex. 1009).
`4 Acheampong et al., Cyclosporine Distribution into the Conjunctiva,
`Cornea, Lacrimal Gland, and Systemic Blood Following Topical Dosing of
`Cyclosporine to Rabbit, Dog, and Human Eyes, LACRIMAL GLAND, TEAR
`FILM, AND DRY EYE SYNDROMES 2: BASIC SCIENCE AND CLINICAL
`RELEVANCE 1001–04 (David A. Sullivan et al. eds., 1998) (Ex. 1008).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311.” Id.
`
`When determining whether to grant a motion for joinder we consider factors
`
`such as timing and impact of joinder on the trial schedule, cost, discovery,
`
`and potential simplification of briefing. Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`
`Under the circumstances of this case, we determine that joinder is
`
`appropriate. As Teva notes, the Petition in IPR2017-00579 is substantially
`
`identical to the Mylan Petition with no substantive differences. Mot. 8.
`
`Teva proposes the same claim construction positions and relies upon the
`
`same exhibits. Id. Although Teva also submitted the declaration of Dr.
`
`Chambliss, Teva has agreed to rely on Mylan’s expert, Dr. Amiji, and
`
`withdraw the expert declaration of Dr. Chambliss. Id. at 9.
`
`Teva has also agreed to assume a “back-seat, ‘understudy’ role” in the
`
`joined proceedings, “without any right to separate or additional briefing or
`
`discovery, unless authorized by the Board upon a request to address an issue
`
`that is unique to Teva.” Id. at 8. Teva further contends that there will be no
`
`impact on the trial schedule of IPR2016-01129, and that joinder will
`
`promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the proceedings
`
`without prejudice to the parties. Id. at 10–11.
`
`Allergan opposes Teva’s Motion for Joinder, arguing that the statute
`
`prohibits the joinder of time barred petitions to existing inter partes review
`
`proceedings. Paper 8, 3–5. But Allergan also “acknowledges the Board’s
`
`current position that (1) section 315(b)’s one-year time bar exception applies
`
`to both petitions and requests for joinder and (2) that institution decisions are
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`not reviewable on appeal.” Id. at 5 n.1 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00109, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 15);
`
`Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)). We are not persuaded by Allergan’s arguments for
`
`the reasons stated in the Board’s prior decisions. See, e.g., Microsoft, Paper
`
`15 at 4 (“[T]he one-year time bar [under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)] does not apply
`
`to a request for joinder.”).
`
`In view of the foregoing, we find that joinder based upon the
`
`conditions stated in Teva’s Motion for Joinder will have little or no impact
`
`on the timing, cost, or presentation of the trial on the instituted grounds.
`
`Moreover, discovery and briefing will be simplified if the proceedings are
`
`joined. Thus, Teva’s Motion for Joinder is granted.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that trial is instituted in IPR2017-00579 on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`A. Claims 1–20 as anticipated by Ding ’979;
`
`B. Claims 1–20 as obvious over Ding ’979 and Sall;
`
`C. Claims 14 and 19 as obvious over Ding ’979, Sall, and Glonek;
`
`D. Claims 11, 18, and 20 as obvious over Ding ’979, Sall, and
`
`Acheampong; and
`
`E. Claim 19 as obvious over Ding ’979, Sall, Glonek, and
`
`Acheampong.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Teva’s Motion for Joinder with IPR2016-
`
`01129 is granted;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-00579 is terminated and joined
`
`to IPR2016-01129, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.122, based on the
`
`conditions stated in Teva’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 3), as discussed above;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`
`IPR2016-01129 shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings in the joined proceeding
`
`are to be made only in IPR2016-01129;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2016-01129 for all
`
`further submissions shall be changed to add Teva as a named Petitioner with
`
`Mylan, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of IPR2017-00579 to that
`
`proceeding, as indicated in the attached sample case caption;5
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2016-01129.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 We note that Petitioner Akorn Inc. has also filed a Motion for Joinder of
`IPR2017-00598 with IPR2016-01129. Concurrent with this decision, the
`Board has entered a decision granting Akorn’s motion, as well.
`Accordingly, the sample case caption also reflects joinder of IPR2017-
`00598.
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Gary Speier
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Mark Schuman
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`Dorothy Whelan
`whelan@fr.com
`
`
`
`Mike Kane
`kane@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2017-00579
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`
`
`
`Sample Case Caption
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC., and AKORN INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-011296
`Patent 8,642,556 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Cases IPR2017-00579 and IPR2017-00598 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`8
`
`
`
`