`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 54
`
`
` Entered: July 31, 2017
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LUYE PHARMA GROUP LTD., LUYE PHARMA(USA) LTD.,
`SHANDONG LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., and
`NANJING LUYE PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALKERMES PHARMA IRELAND LTD. and
`ALKERMES CONTROLLED THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01096
`Patent 6,667,061 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`Patent 6,667,061 B2
`
`
`We instituted the above-identified inter partes review on November
`30, 2016. Paper 13. The Scheduling Order set August 28, 2017, as the date
`for oral argument, if requested by either party. Paper 15. Petitioner and
`Patent Owner each requested an oral hearing pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70(a). Papers 48, 49. The requests are granted.
`The hearing will commence at 1:00 PM Eastern Time, on
`Wednesday, August 28, 2017, and will be conducted at the USPTO
`Central Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia (the ninth floor of Madison
`Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314). The
`hearing will be open to the public for in-person attendance that will be
`accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`Each party will have 45 minutes of argument time. Petitioner bears
`the ultimate burden of proof that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
`Accordingly, Petitioner will proceed first to present its case regarding the
`challenged claims for which the Board instituted trial. Patent Owner will
`then have an opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s arguments. Thereafter,
`Petitioner may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal only to respond to
`arguments presented by Patent Owner. Patent Owner may not reserve
`rebuttal time.
`The Board will provide a court reporter, and the reporter’s transcript
`will constitute the official record of the hearing. The hearing transcript will
`be entered in the record of this proceeding.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b), demonstrative exhibits must be served at
`least seven (7) business days before the hearing. The Board requests that
`such exhibits be filed at the Board at least five business days before the
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`Patent 6,667,061 B2
`
`hearing. A hard copy of the demonstratives should be provided to the court
`reporter at the hearing.
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence, but are merely a visual aid at
`the oral arguments. Demonstrative exhibits may not introduce new evidence
`or raise new arguments, but instead, should cite to evidence in the record.
`The parties are directed to St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. The
`Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Case IPR2013-00041
`(PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65), regarding the appropriate content of
`demonstrative exhibits. The Board expects that the parties will meet and
`confer in good faith to resolve any objections to demonstrative exhibits, but
`if such objections cannot be resolved the parties may file any objections to
`demonstratives with the Board at least two business days before the hearing.
`The objections should identify with particularity which portions of the
`demonstrative exhibits are subject to objection, include a copy of the
`objected-to portions, and include a one-sentence statement of the reason for
`each objection. The Board asks the parties to confine demonstrative exhibit
`objections to those identifying egregious violations that are prejudicial to the
`administration of justice. No argument or further explanation is permitted.
`The Board will consider any objections and schedule a conference call if
`deemed necessary. Otherwise, the Board will reserve ruling on the
`objections. Any objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely
`presented will be considered waived.
`The parties also should note that at least one member of the panel will
`be attending the hearing electronically from a remote location, and that if a
`demonstrative is not made fully available or visible to the judge participating
`in the hearing remotely, that demonstrative will not be considered. The
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`Patent 6,667,061 B2
`
`parties are also reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and
`specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number)
`referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the
`reporter’s transcript and the ability of the judge participating in the hearing
`remotely to closely follow the presenter’s arguments.
`The Board expects lead counsel for each party to be present at the oral
`hearing, although any counsel of record may make the actual presentation.
`If either party anticipates that its lead counsel will not be in attendance at the
`oral hearing, the Board shall be advised by email no later than five (5)
`business days prior to the oral hearing, and such lead counsel shall be
`available to discuss the matter via conference call if necessary.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment are to be made (5) five days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not received
`timely, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`It is
`ORDERED that oral argument will commence at 1:00 PM ET on
`August 28, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01096
`Patent 6,667,061 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`William Mentlik
`Paul Kochanski
`Tedd Van Burskirk
`Nichole Valeyko
`LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP
`wmentlik.ipr@ ldlkm.com
`pkochanski@ldlkm.com
`tvanburkirk@ldlkm.com
`nvaleyko@ldlkm.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Scott Reed
`Justin Oliver
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`sreed@fchs.com joliver@fchs.com
`alkermesipr@fchs.com
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
