throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed December 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC., and AKORN INC.1
`Petitioners,
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2)
`
`COMMENTS OF AMICI CURIAE DEVA HOLDING A.S. IN RESPONSE
`TO THE BOARD’S INVITATION FOR AMICUS BRIEFS REGARDING
`THE TRIBE’S MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00576, IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00578, IPR2017-00596,
`IPR2017-00579, IPR2017-00598, IPR2017-00583, IPR2017-00599, IPR2017-
`00585, IPR2017-00600, IPR2017-00586 and IPR2017-00601 have respectively
`been joined with the above-captioned proceedings. The word-for-word identical
`paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the above caption pursuant to the
`Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 10).
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.
`
`IDENTITY OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE…………………………..1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ……………………………………………………………....3
`
`A.
`
`The Tribe’s and Allergan’s actions in related litigation belie
`their claims in these Board proceedings that Allergan and the Tribe lack
`identical interests, and Allergan cannot represent the Tribe
`in its absence…….........................................................................................3
`
`The Tribe’s and Allergan’s actions in other related litigation belie
`their claims that Allergan and the Tribe lack identical interests,
`and Allergan cannot represent the Tribe in its absence..……….........……..5
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………….….6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE………………………………………..……7
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`IDENTITY OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVA Holding A.S. (“DEVA”) is a Turkish company involved in a pending
`
`lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas filed by
`
`Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) against DEVA, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1447-WCB
`
`(“the Pending Litigation”). In this action, Allergan alleges that Deva’s proposed
`
`generic version of the Restasis® Product, which is the subject of an Abbreviated
`
`New Drug Application filed by DEVA with the United States Food and Drug
`
`Administration, will infringe United States Patent Nos. 8,629,111, 8,633,162,
`
`8,642,556, 8,648,048, 8,685,930, and 9,248,191 (“the Patents-in-Suit”). DEVA
`
`asserts that the Patents-In-Suit are invalid or not infringed by its ANDA product.
`
`The Pending Litigation is in its early stages, with the parties presently engaged in
`
`fact discovery and trial set for October 15, 2018. Recently, Allergan and Deva
`
`jointly submitted a stipulation to the Court regarding claim construction, without
`
`participation of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“the Tribe”).
`
`
`
`Because the Board provides limited procedural guidance regarding a filing
`
`of this nature, we respectfully submit these comments to assist the Board’s
`
`evaluation of the Tribe’s Motion to Terminate these IPR proceedings. In Paper 96,
`
`the Board authorized any interested amici curiae to file briefing on the pending
`
`Motion to Terminate by December 1, 2017. We certify that no party or its counsel
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`to the above-captioned Board proceedings authored these comments in whole or in
`
`part, no such party or its counsel contributed money intended to fund the
`
`preparation or submission of these comments, and no person other than the amici
`
`contributed money intended to fund the preparation or submission of these
`
`comments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Tribe’s and Allergan’s actions in related litigation belie their
`claims in these Board proceedings that Allergan and the Tribe
`lack identical interests, and Allergan cannot represent the Tribe
`in its absence.
`
`
`Actions speak louder than words. In its Corrected Motion to Terminate
`
`
`
`(Dkt. 81 at 16), the Tribe argues that it is an indispensable party under the Board’s
`
`identity-of-interest test. Specifically, the Tribe says that the Board cannot proceed
`
`“in the absence of the Tribe because Allergan and the Tribe do not have identical
`
`interests, and Allergan cannot represent the Tribe in its absence.” (Id.) In support
`
`of that argument, the Tribe further says that claim construction positions “might”
`
`serve Allergan’s interest differently than the Tribe’s or that the Tribe might “desire
`
`to not risk the validity of the Patents-at-Issue.” (Id. at 22.) Despite these hollow
`
`words, the most recent actions by Allergan and the Tribe in the Pending Litigation
`
`against DEVA speak volumes to the contrary.
`
`
`
`In the Pending Litigation against DEVA, Allergan acted by filing a letter
`
`with the Court on September 8, 2017 stating that “[t]his morning, Allergan
`
`assigned its rights in a number of patents, including the patents-in-suit, to the Saint
`
`Regis Mohawk Tribe.” (Pending Litigation, D.I. 44-1.) Allergan further states that
`
`“Allergan does not anticipate that this assignment will have any impact on the
`
`litigation or the issues before the Court, other than it expects to join the Tribe as a
`
`co-plaintiff in due course.” (Id.) Here is whereAllergan’s and the Tribe’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`inconsistent positions before this Board and the district court become apparent. On
`
`one hand, in the Pending Litigation against DEVA, Allergan itself informs the
`
`Court that it does not anticipate that the Tribe’s involvement “will have any impact
`
`on the litigation or the issues before the Court.” But on the other hand, the Tribe
`
`argues to this Board that it may need to take claim construction positions
`
`competing with Allergan.
`
`Just as important, since the September 8, 2017 letter to the Court, neither
`
`Allergan or the Tribe have asked that the Tribe be joined as a co-plaintiff to the
`
`Pending Litigation. These actions by Allergan and the Tribe demonstrate that they
`
`understand and agree that Allergan can and is, in fact, currently representing the
`
`Tribe’s identical interests in matters relating to the patents-in-suit. This is also
`
`confirmed by the License Agreement stating that Allergan, not the Tribe, retains
`
`control over litigation. (EX2087 §§ 5.1.1., 5.2.2., 5.3.)
`
`
`
`The most telling example showing that, for all practical purposes, Allergan’s
`
`and the Tribe’s interests are identically aligned concerns the recent joint filing by
`
`Deva and Allergan regarding claim construction in the Pending Litigation. Even
`
`after the filing of the Corrected Motion to Terminate on September 22, 2017 (Dkt.
`
`81) and corresponding Reply brief on October 20, 2017 (Dkt. 93) with the Board,
`
`on November 10, 2017, Deva and Allergan filed a Joint Motion for Stipulation
`
`Concerning Claim Construction with the court in the Pending Litigation. (Pending
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Litigation, D.I. 47). Noticeably absent from this filing is the Tribe as a named
`
`party, let alone any allegation that the Tribe may potentially have a competing
`
`claim construction. This filing action by Allergan, coupled with the filing inaction
`
`by the Tribe on a substantive issue, clearly demonstrates that the Tribe’s interests
`
`are identically aligned with those of Allergan, despite their hollow arguments to
`
`the contrary before the Board.
`
`B.
`
`The Tribe’s and Allergan’s actions in other related litigation belie
`their claims that Allergan and the Tribe lack identical interests,
`and Allergan cannot represent the Tribe in its absence.
`
`
`The words of Allergan and the Tribe before the Board are not only hollow
`
`and inconsistent with their actions in the Pending Litigation against DEVA, they
`
`are equally inconsistent with actions taken in other district court litigations. As
`
`recognized by the Tribe in its Reply (Dkt. 93 at 4), the United States District Court
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas recently invalidated all asserted claims of the
`
`Patents-In-Suit in a different action before Judge Bryson, Allergan et al. v. Teva et
`
`al., 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (E.D.Tex.). (EX. 1165.) In response to this judgment, the
`
`Tribe says “Allergan could choose not to appeal the district court opinion and
`
`thereby avoid paying any additional royalties to the Tribe, which potentially total
`
`more than $100,000,000.” (Dkt. 93 at 4). Those arguments to this Board again are
`
`inconsistent with the actions of Allergan and the Tribe, when a mere seven days
`
`later they jointly filed a notice of appeal with the Federal Circuit on October 27,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`2017. Allergan et al. v. Teva et al., 2:15-cv-1455-WCB (E.D.Tex.) (D.I. 527).
`
`This again demonstrates that the interests of Allergan and the Tribe are identical
`
`for all practical purposes and the Tribe’s Motion to Terminate should be denied.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully submit these comments and
`
`respectfully request the Board to deny the Tribe’s Motion to Terminate.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph E. Cwik/
`Joseph E. Cwik
`Reg. No. 38,421
`joe@amintalati.com
`Shashank Upadhye
`shashank@amintalati.com
`Erin R. Conway
`erin@amintalati.com
`AMIN TALATI UPADHYE LLP
`100 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2000
`Chicago IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 466-1033
`Fax: (312) 884-7352
`Attorneys for DEVA Holding
`A.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on December 1, 2017, a complete and entire copy of COMMENTS OF AMICI
`
`CURIAE DEVA HOLDING A.S. IN RESPONSE TO THE BOARD’S
`
`INVITATION FOR AMICUS BRIEFS REGARDING THE TRIBE’S MOTION
`
`TO TERMINATE was provided, via electronic service, to the Petitioners and
`
`Patent Owners by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Wendy L. Devine
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`One Market Street, Spear Tower Floor 33
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`
`Douglas H. Carsten
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`7
`
`

`

`1700 K Street NW, 5th Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Brandon M. White
`Crystal Canterbury
`Charles G. Curtis, Jr.
`Jennifer MacLean
`Benjamin S. Sharp
`Shannon M. Bloodworth
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th Street NW
`Washington DC 20005
`bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`ccanterbury@perkinscoie.com
`ccurtis@perkinscoie.com
`jmaclean@perkinscoie.com
`bsharp@perkinscoie.com
`sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`
`Eric D. Miller
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`emiller@perkinscoie.com
`Attorneys for Mylan Pharmaceuticas, Inc.
`
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk
`Azy S. Kokabi
`Travis B. Ribar
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`akokabi@sughrue.com
`tribar@sughrue.com
`Attorneys for Akorn Inc.
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Mark D. Schuman
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`IPRCyclosporine@carlsoncaspers.com
`Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`Alfonso Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`Michael Shore
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Christopher Evans
`cevans@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Marsha Schmidt
`Attorney at Law
`14928 Perrywood Drive
`Burtonsville, MD 20866
`marsha@mkschmidtlaw.com
`Tel: (301) 949-5176
`Attorneys for Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Michael Kane
`Susan Morrison Colletti
`Robert M. Oakes
`Jonathan Singer
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP1@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP2@fr.com
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Email: IPR13351-0008IP3@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP4@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP5@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP6@fr.com
`PTABinbound@fr.com
`Attorneys for Allergan, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`December 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Joseph E. Cwik/
`Joseph E. Cwik
`Reg. No. 38,421
`joe@amintalati.com
`Shashank Upadhye
`shashank@amintalati.com
`Erin R. Conway
`erin@amintalati.com
`AMIN TALATI UPADHYE LLP
`100 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 2000
`Chicago IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 466-1033
`Fax: (312) 884-7352
`Attorneys for DEVA Holding
`A.S.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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