throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01117, Paper 12
`IPR2015-01340, Paper 39
`Entered: October 21, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A. INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`____________
`
`Before MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, RAMA G. ELLURU, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`37 C.F.R. § 42.222
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`Petitioner, Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (“Aurobindo”), filed a
`Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37,
`and 39–42 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE44,186 E (Ex.
`1001, “the ’186 patent”) (Paper 1, “Pet.”). Concurrently with its Petition,
`Aurobindo filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”), seeking to
`consolidate this case, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), with the inter partes review
`in Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB, LLC, Case IPR2015-01340 (“the
`Mylan IPR” and Petitioner “Mylan”), which was instituted on May 2, 2016.
`See IPR2015-01340 (Paper 16, 34–35) (rehearing decision instituting review
`of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent).
`Patent Owner AstraZeneca AB (“AstraZeneca”) filed a preliminary
`response in the present proceeding (Paper 11), and an Oppsotion to
`Aurobindo’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“Opp.”).
`For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Aurobindo has
`shown that the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review of
`claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent. This
`conclusion is consistent with our institution decision in the Mylan IPR. See
`IPR2015-01340, Paper 16, 34–35. Further, we grant Aurobindo’s Motion
`for Joinder and exercise our discretion to join Aurobindo as a Petitioner to
`the Mylan IPR. We further terminate the present proceeding, IPR2016-
`01117.
`
`I. PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`Aurobindo indicates that the ’186 patent is the subject of numerous
`district court cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
`Delaware. Pet. 17. In addition, the ’186 patent is the subject of pending
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`inter partes review proceedings, including IPR2016-1029, IPR2016-01122,
`and IPR2016-01104. The ’186 patent also was the subject of the Mylan IPR,
`as noted above.
`In the Mylan IPR, we instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4,
`6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent on the same grounds of
`unpatentability asserted in the present Petition, reproduced below. Pet 18;
`Mot. 6–7; IPR2015-01340, Paper 16, 34–35.
`
`
`
`Pet. 18.
`Aurobindo supports its assertions with the same evidence and
`arguments proffered in the Mylan IPR. Pet. 24–69. Aurobindo notes that its
`“Petition that accompanies the present Motion for Joinder and
`accompanying evidence are the same as the instituted Mylan IPR Petition
`and Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner Response, aside from procedural
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`sections that, for example, identify Aurobindo, any real parties in interest,
`and its standing.” Mot. 7. Aurobindo also asserts that it “challenges the
`same ’186 patent claims based on the same arguments, evidence, and ground
`of unpatentability on which the Board instituted review in the Mylan IPR.”
`Id.
`
`We incorporate our analysis from our institution decision in the Mylan
`IPR. IPR2015-01340, Paper 16, 6–32, 34–35. For the same reasons, we
`determine that Aurobindo has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it
`will prevail with respect to its challenge to claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–
`37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent on the asserted grounds.
`
`II. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`In the Motion for Joinder, Aurobindo seeks joinder with the inter
`
`partes review in the Mylan IPR. Mot. 1–2. Aurobindo filed the present
`Motion on June 2, 2016, within one month of our decision instituting inter
`partes review in IPR2015-01340, which issued on May 2, 2016. See
`IPR2015-01340, Paper 16; Mot. Therefore, the Motion is timely under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.122(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“Any request for joinder
`must be filed, as a motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.”).
`The Board, acting on behalf of the Director, has the discretion to join
`a party to a pending inter partes review where the conditions of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(c) are met. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The
`Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Specifically, 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(c) provides:
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`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 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary
`response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing
`such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`As noted above, we have instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 2,
`4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 of the ’186 patent in the Mylan IPR. See
`generally IPR2015-01340, Paper 16. In addition, we determined above that
`Aurobindo has filed a Petition that warrants institution of inter partes review
`of the same claims. Accordingly, the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) are
`satisfied, and we must consider whether to exercise our discretion to join
`Aurobindo as a Petitioner to the Mylan IPR.
`In its Motion for Joinder, Aurobindo asserts that:
`[A]llowing Aurobindo to participate in the Mylan IPR will
`allow Aurobindo and AstraZeneca to resolve the underlying
`litigation between the parties in a cost effective, expeditious
`manner should Mylan seek to terminate its participation in the
`Mylan IPR based on settlement or other factors.
`Mot. 9.
`Upon authorization, Aurobindo and AstraZeneca filed a joint
`stipulation explaining the agreement between Petitioners Mylan and
`Aurobindo, and any other petitioners joined to the Mylan IPR, with respect
`to the level of cooperation that will be maintained should joinder be granted.
`Paper 10. Pursuant to the stipulation, Aurobindo agrees “to share the use of
`Mylan’s experts with Mylan, the ‘Lead Petitioner,’ and all joined petitioners
`in this IPR proceeding.” Id. at 1. Further, as long as Mylan is a party to the
`proceeding, Aurobindo will “coordinate any communications with Mylan’s
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`experts through Mylan;” “not produce their own testifying witness;” and
`“not file substantive papers (except for those associated with Board
`approved motions that do not affect Mylan or Mylan’s position).” Id. at 1.
`Aurobindo also agrees to confer and cooperate with Mylan, and all joined
`petitioners, on the consolidated filings, and that as long as Mylan remains a
`party in the Mylan IPR, “Mylan will make all final decisions and will retain
`responsibility for oral argument (including telephone hearings and appeals).”
`Id. at 2. Aurobindo further agrees that “Aurobindo will not seek or receive
`separate time and will not separately argue during oral argument, including
`telephone hearings and appeals, except when addressing Board-approved
`motions that do not affect Mylan or Mylan’s position.” Id. In addition,
`Aurobindo agrees to coordinate the discovery and testimony relating to
`witnesses with Mylan, and all joined petitioners, and that as long as Mylan
`remains a party in the Mylan IPR, Mylan will make all final decisions, and
`Aurobindo will not separately file or serve objections or discovery requests,
`will not receive separate cross examination or redirect time, will not
`separately cross examine or redirect any witness, and stipulates that cross
`examinations will occur within the timeframe normally allotted to one party
`without a need for extensions in light of joinder. Id.
`Lastly, Aurobindo agrees that if Mylan is no longer a party to the
`Mylan IPR, “Aurobindo shall meet and confer with the remaining joined
`parties, if any, to select a new Lead Petitioner,” and that “[a]ny such new
`Lead Petitioner will effectively take Mylan’s place in this proceeding and
`Aurobindo will continue to be bound” to the present agreement. Id. at 3.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`AstraZeneca advised Aurobindo that it maintains that joinder is not
`proper for the reasons provided in its opposition to the motion for joinder.
`Id. at 3. However, if joinder is granted, AstraZeneca does not request any
`additional level of cooperation other than that specified in the joint
`stipulation. Id.
`
`AstraZeneca opposes joinder, contending that “[j]oinder will
`complicate the Mylan IPR because Aurobindo and Mylan are not working
`together.” Opp. 4. For example, AstraZeneca asserts that “Aurobindo and
`Mylan are direct competitors with independent agendas that are advancing
`different substantive positions in the district court litigation with different
`lead compound theories, different prior art, and different expert witnesses.”
`Opp. 4–5. This argument does not persuade us from granting joinder
`because the joint stipulation filed subsequent to AstraZeneca’s opposition
`explains the level of cooperation that will exist between Aurobindo and
`Mylan should joinder be granted. The level of cooperation agreed to
`between Mylan and Aurobindo addresses AstraZeneca’s concerns about
`Aurobindo proffering different arguments and evidence. AstraZeneca’s
`opposition further requests that safeguards be imposed should Aurobindo’s
`motion for joinder be granted. Opp. 10–11. Pursuant to the subsequent joint
`stipulation, however, AstraZeneca asserts that “[i]f joinder is granted,
`AstraZeneca advises that it does not request any additional level of
`cooperation other than that specified in the previous section.” Paper 10, 3.
`Thus, we determine that AstraZeneca’s requested safeguards have been
`agreed to by Petitioners Mylan and Aurobindo.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`AstraZeneca further contends that joinder will not enhance
`
`efficiencies, because Aurobindo’s petition “has no independent right to seek
`an IPR” given its petition is time-barred pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`Opp. 7–8. Section 315(b) states:
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition
`requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date
`on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence
`shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).
`
`AstraZeneca argues that “[t]he last sentence of § 315(b) provides an
`exception to the one-year bar only for a request for joinder, not for a petition
`for IPR.” Opp. 9. According to AstraZeneca, the one-year time bar applies
`to “all petitions, even in the joinder context,” and that § 315(c) does not
`“provide a backdoor for time-barred petitions to be effectively instituted
`through joinder.” Opp. 9. In support, AstraZeneca asserts that § 315(c)
`“requires compliance with § 311, which in turn requires compliance with the
`other provisions of Title 35, Chapter 31 of the U.S. Code, including the
`timeliness provisions.” Opp. 10.
`AstraZeneca’s argument does not persuade us from granting joinder.
`The Office has implemented a regulation that implements § 315(b)’s one-
`year deadline. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). Our regulations also address the
`exception created by the second sentence of § 315(b); they provide that the
`one-year time limit “shall not apply when the petition is accompanied by a
`request for joinder.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). See Achates Reference Publ’g,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the second sentence
`of § 315(b) “means that an otherwise time-barred party may nonetheless
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`participate in an inter partes review proceeding if another party files a
`proper petition.”) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added)). Thus, we
`determine that the second sentence of § 315(b) does not preclude us from
`joining Aurobindo as a Petitioner to the Mylan IPR.
`Because Aurobindo has satisfied the requirements of § 315(c), we
`grant Aurobindo’s Motion for Joinder and exercise our discretion to join
`Aurobindo as a Petitioner to the already existing Mylan IPR. We further
`terminate the present proceeding.
`As a Petitioner in the Mylan IPR, Aurobindo shall adhere to the
`existing schedule in the Mylan IPR and abide by the joint stipulation with
`respect to consolidated filings, and discovery and testimony. Paper 10.
`More specifically, all filings by Aurobindo in the Mylan IPR shall be
`consolidated with the filings of the other Mylan IPR Petitioner(s), unless the
`filing involves an issue unique to Aurobindo or states a point of
`disagreement related to the consolidated filing. In such circumstances,
`Aurobindo shall seek authorization from the Board to file a separate paper.
`The page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 will apply to all consolidated
`filings.
`Aurobindo is bound by any discovery agreements, including
`deposition arrangements, between AstraZeneca and Mylan, and shall not
`seek any discovery beyond that sought by Mylan. AstraZeneca shall not be
`required to provide any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of
`joinder.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`The Board expects Mylan and Aurobindo to resolve any disputes
`between them and to contact the Board only if such matters cannot be
`resolved.
`
`III. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Aurobindo’s Motion for Joinder is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Aurobindo is joined as a Petitioner in
`IPR2015-01340;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding, IPR2016-01117,
`is terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings shall be made
`only in IPR2015-01340;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the asserted grounds of unpatentability on
`which a trial was instituted in IPR2015-01340 are unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the current Scheduling Order for
`IPR2015-01340 shall continue to govern IPR2015-01340;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Aurobindo shall adhere to the existing
`schedule in the Mylan IPR IPR2015-01340;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Aurobindo shall abide by the joint
`stipulation with respect to consolidated filings, and discovery and testimony
`(Paper 10);
`FURTHER ORDERED that all filings by Aurobindo in the Mylan
`IPR shall be consolidated with the filings of the other Mylan IPR
`Petitioner(s), unless the filing involves an issue unique to Aurobindo or
`states a point of disagreement related to the consolidated filing. In such
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`circumstances, Aurobindo shall seek authorization from the Board to file a
`separate paper;
`FURTHER ORDERED that all page limits set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.24 will apply to all consolidated filings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Aurobindo shall be bound by any
`discovery agreements, including deposition arrangements, between
`AstraZeneca and Mylan, and shall not seek any discovery beyond that
`sought by Mylan;
`FURTHER ORDERED that AstraZeneca shall not be required to
`provide any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of joinder;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mylan and Aurobindo shall resolve any
`disputes between them and to contact the Board only if such matters cannot
`be resolved;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-01340 shall
`be changed to reflect the joinder of Aurobindo as a Petitioner in accordance
`with the attached example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the file of IPR2015-01340.
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01117
`Patent RE44,186 E
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER MYLAN:
`Steven Parmelee
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`Richard Torczon
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER AUROBINDO:
`Sailesh K. Patel
`SPatel@schiffhardin.com
`George Yu
`gyu@schiffhardin.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER WOCKHARDT:
`Patrick Gallagher
`pcgallagher@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FOR PETITIONER TEVA:
`Gary Speier
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`Iain McIntyre
`IMcIntyre@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Charles Lipsey
`Charles.lipsey@finnegan.com
`David Weingarten
`David.weingarten@finnegan.com
`Eric Grondahl
`egrondahl@mccarter.com
`John Livingstone
`Jonh.livingstone@finnegan.com
`Anthony Hartmann
`Anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com
`
`
`

`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., WOCKHARDT BIO AG, TEVA
`PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and
`AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-013401
`Patent RE44,186 E
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner Wockhardt from IPR2016-01209, Petitioner Teva from
`IPR2016-01122, and Petitioner Aurobindo from IPR2016-01117 have each
`been joined as Petitioners to this proceeding.

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