`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 23
`Entered: May 17, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANDRX CORPORATION,
`ANDRX LABORATORIES, INC.
`ANDRX LABORATORIES (NJ), INC.
`ANDRX EU LTD.
`ANDRX PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.
`Patent Owner(s).
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01648
`Patent 6,866,866 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before SUSAN L.C. MITCHELL, TINA E. HULSE, and
`DEVON ZASTROW NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`NEWMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Joint Motion to Limit the Petition
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1(b), 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01648
`Patent 6,866,866 B1
`
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1–25 (all claims) of U.S. Patent No.
`6,866,866 on three grounds: (1) anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over WO
`00/12097 (“Chen”); (2) anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over WO
`99/47128 (“Timmins”; and (3) obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over WO
`99/47125 (“Cheng”) and Timmins. Paper 1, 10–11. In our institution
`decision, we ordered review of all challenged claims but limited the
`proceeding to the ground based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`Paper 12, 22. On May 9, 2018, we modified our institution decision “to
`include review of all challenged claims and all grounds presented in the
`Petition.” Paper 20, 2.
`On May 16, 2018, with our prior authorization, the parties filed a Joint
`Motion to Limit the Petition. Paper 22. Specifically, “Petitioner and Patent
`Owner hereby submit this Joint Motion to Limit the Petition to the actual
`Ground of Institution set forth at Paper No. 12 (instituting on Ground 3,
`Obviousness of claims 1-25 over Timmins and Cheng, p. 15).” Id. at 2.
`Removing grounds from dispute, pursuant to a joint request of the parties,
`serves our overarching goal of resolving this proceeding in a just, speedy,
`and inexpensive manner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`Accordingly, we grant the Joint Motion to Limit the Petition. As
`such, the grounds presented in the Petition based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 are
`removed from dispute in this proceeding. The sole ground of unpatentability
`remaining in dispute is the challenge to claims 1–25 based on obviousness
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`It is
`ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Limit the Petition is granted;
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01648
`Patent 6,866,866 B1
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is limited to the ground of
`unpatentability asserted against claims 1–25 of the ’866 patent based on
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Steven J. Moore
`John Winterle
`Alan Gardner
`WITHERS BERGMAN LLP
`steven.moore@withersworldwide.com
`john.winterle@withersworldwide.com
`alan.gardner@withersworldwide.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Jonathan Ben-Ur Roses
`WILMER HALE
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`jonathan.roses@wilmerhale.com
`
`David A. Chavous
`Chavous Intellectual Property Law LLC
`dchavous@chavousiplaw.com
`
`David A. Giordano
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`davidg@giordanolawllc.com
`
`
`3
`
`