Mail Stop Interference
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Tel: 571-272-4683
`Fax: 571-273-0042
`
`Filed: 19 November 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ANATLEVIN
`and MICHAEL GRABARNICK,
`Junior Party,
`(Application 13/926,389),
`v.
`ANDREA PASTORIO
`and PAOLO BETTI,
`Senior Party,
`(Patent 8,304,559).
`
`Patent Interference No. 105,995 (SGL)
`(Technology Center 1600)
`
`Order- Authorizing Surreply -Bd. R. 104(a)
`
`-1-
`
`FINCHIMICA EXHIBIT 2014
`ADAMA MAKHTESHIM v. FINCH/MICA
`CASE IPR2016-00577
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Counsel for Pastorio contacted the Board seeking a telephone conference
`call so that it may “request permission to file a motion to strike Levin Reply 4
`(Paper No. 251) filed November 10, 2015.” Pastorio asked that if such a motion is
`not authorized then it be authorized to file either Observations on Cross-
`Examination pursuant to Standing Order (SO, Paper 2) 157.7 or a surreply “to
`clarify the record”. According to Pastorio, and as set forth in the attached email
`communication, Levin opposes the filing of a motion to strike or a surreply but
`does not object to the filing of Observations on Cross-Examination. (See attached
`email communication).
`A party filing a motion must set forth all arguments for relief in the motion.
`New issues and arguments may not be raised in a reply as a reply is only for the
`purpose of responding to arguments raised in an opposition. Bd. R. 122(b);
`Standing Order, Paper 2, at ¶ 122.5. A party failing to set forth a prima facie basis
`for relief in its motion may not rely upon a reply to supplement the deficient
`motion.
`The Board will not consider improper reply. Accordingly, Pastorio need not
`file a motion to strike to obtain the relief it seeks. Further Observations on Cross-
`Examination are not appropriate here since Pastorio was able to highlight any
`relevant cross-examination in its Opposition 4.1
`
`
`1 ¶ 157.7 Observations on cross examinations
`In the event that cross examination occurs after a party has filed its last
`substantive paper on an issue, such cross examination may result in
`testimony that should be called to the Board's attention but does not merit a
`motion to exclude. The Board may authorize the filing of observations to
`identify such testimony and responses to observations.
`
`(Standing Order (SO) (Paper 2) at 51).
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`In view of the remarks presented and the briefing of record, the Board has
`determined that a minimal surreply is appropriate. In the surreply Pastorio may point
`out and respond to what it believes to be new issues and arguments raised in Levin
`Reply 4. If the surreply raises new issues or arguments it will not be considered.
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Pastorio is authorized to file a surreply to Levin Reply 4,
`not to exceed two pages (excluding title page and certificate of service), on or before
`24 November 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sally Gardner Lane/
`Administrative Patent Judge
`
`
`
`Attorney for Levin:
`
`Gary J. Gershik
`Norman H. Zivin
`COOPER & DUNHAM, LLP
`ggershik@cooperdunham.com
`nzivin@cooperdunham.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`
`Attorney for Pastorio:
`
`E. Anthony Figg
`R. Danny Huntington
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`efigg@rfem.com
`dhuntington@rfem.com
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`From: Danny Huntington [mailto:dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com]
`Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 3:41 PM
`To: Interference Trial Section
`Cc: Gary J. Gershik (GGERSHIK@COOPERDUNHAM.COM); 'nzivin@cooperdunham.com'; E. Anthony Figg; Seth E.
`Cockrum; Erik van Leeuwen
`Subject: Interference No. 105,995 (SGL) - Levin v. Pastorio
`
`Pastorio would like to have a telephone conference to request permission to file a motion to strike Levin Reply 4 (Paper 
`No. 251) filed November 10, 2015.  The motion will have three bases: 
`
`(1) Levin’s use of an additional reference to support its unpatentability motion, and the discussion of that reference in its
`Reply, violate the PTAB’s Order that Levin be limited to a single reference, i.e., WO 2007/122440 A1.  See Order – 
`Authorizing Motion 37 C.F.R. § 41.121(a) dated August 4, 2015 (Paper No. 155).  As in its original Motion 4, Levin is again 
`improperly relying on an additional reference to support its unpatentability motion under the guise of the “knowledge 
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art.”  See Levin Motion 4 at n.1 (Paper No. 175).  Also see Pastorio Opposition 4 (Paper 
`No. 227)(incorrectly named Pastorio  Opposition 3) at 10 (n. 3) and 13.    
`
`(2) Levin’s Reply violates Standing Order ¶ 122.5 by raising several new issues, for example, by alleging for the first time 
`that it would have been obvious to combine DCA with 3‐chlorobenzoic acid to form fipronil (See Levin Reply 4 at  8:11‐
`18).  
`
`(3) Levin’s Reply also violates Standing Order ¶ 122.5 by citing selected portions of Pastorio’s expert testimony without 
`also citing the portions that are directly contradictory, e.g., compare Levin Reply 4 at 8:6‐10 with Exh. 1052 at 116:11‐
`20. If a motion to strike is not authorized, Pastorio requests permission to submit Observations on Cross‐Examination
`(S.O. § 157.7) or a surreply to clarify the record, particularly if there is a possibility an oral hearing will not be held. 
`
`Counsel for Levin has requested that the following be included in this email: 
`
`Counsel for Levin opposes the filing of a motion to strike, opposes the filing of a surreply, and provides relevant facts 
`below.  
`
`Levin understands Pastorio to be referring to Exhibit 1046 (Szmant) based on Pastorio's separately served November
`1)
`17, 2015 Objections To Levin Evidence.  Exhibit 1046 was introduced during cross‐examination of Pastorio's Expert, Dr. 
`1
`
`

`
`Curran, in reply to a theory presented by Dr. Curran in his Declaration.  (Ex 1052, 90:8‐9 and 96:21‐97:18.)    Levin then 
`cited Exhibit 1046 at 7:20 of its Reply 4 along with other evidence in reply to Pastorio’s arguments (paper 227, 15:21‐
`16:7, and 13:6‐18) that DCA was not believed acidic enough to successfully oxidize the sulfide precursor of fipronil.   
`
`2) Again replying to Pastorio’s arguments that DCA was not believed acidic enough, Levin Reply 4 at 8:11‐18 pointed
`out Pastorio’s own admission (MF 82 and Ex. 2001, 1:61‐62), a statement in WO ‘440 (Ex. 2009, 4:14‐16) and arguments 
`already set forth in Levin Motion 4 that the peracid derivative of an acid weaker than DCA, namely 3‐chlorobenzoic acid, 
`was known to oxidize the sulfide precursor of fipronil to fipronil. (Paper 175, 11:3‐7, which cites Ex. 2001 at 1:23‐67.)  No 
`new issues are raised in Levin Reply 4. 
`
`3) Dr. Curran’s testimony cited at Levin Reply 4 at 8:6‐10 is not contradictory to the testimony set forth at Ex. 1052,
`116:11‐20. There is no violation of S.O. ¶ 122.5. To the extent that Pastorio wishes to bring the testimony set forth at Ex. 
`1052, 116:11‐20 to the attention of the Board, Levin does not object to Pastorio filing Observations on Cross‐
`Examination under S.O. § 157.7, but Levin requests authorization to file responses thereto. 
`
`Counsel are available for a telephone conference at the Board's convenience. 
`
`Respectfully submitted, 
`R. Danny Huntington 
`Backup Counsel for Pastorio 
`
`R. Danny Huntington, Esq.
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W.
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Main No: (202) 783-6040
`Fax No: (202) 783-6031
`dhuntington@rfem.com
`
`STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY
`The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the
`addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy,
`distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Rothwell, Figg, Ernst
`& Manbeck, P.C. immediately at (202) 783-6040 or email us at dhuntington@rfem.com, and destroy all copies of this message and any
`attachments. 
`
`2