throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper: 9
`
`
` Entered: Nov. 30, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`FOXHILL CAPITAL PARTNERS, and MYCONOVO, INC.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01386, Case IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and
`ELIZABETH M. ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ROESEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Reviews and Motions for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108 and 42.122
`
`
`
`1 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) is Petitioner in Case IPR2016-
`01386, Foxhill Capital Partners and MycoNovo, Inc. (collectively,
`“Foxhill”) is Petitioner in Case IPR2016-01409.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioners, Mylan and Foxhill, each filed a Petition requesting an
`inter partes review of claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,688 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’688 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).2 Concurrently with the Petitions,
`Mylan and Foxhill each filed a Motion for Joinder requesting that Petitioner
`be joined as a party to GeneriCo LLC v. Dr. Falk Pharma, IPR2016-00297
`(“297 IPR”). Paper 3 (“Joinder Mot.”).
`Patent Owner, Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH, filed an opposition to the
`Motion for Joinder in each case. IPR2016-01386, Paper 6 (“1386 PO
`Opp.”); IPR2016-01409, Paper 9 (“1409 PO Opp.”). In each case, Patent
`Owner waived its right to present a preliminary response to the Petition for
`inter partes review. Paper 8.
`Petitioner in IPR2016-00297, GeneriCo, LLC and Flat Line Capital,
`LLC (collectively, “GeneriCo”), filed an opposition to Foxhill’s Motion for
`Joinder, IPR2016-00297, Paper 22 (“GeneriCo Opp.”), but did not oppose
`Mylan’s Motion for Joinder.
`In Case IPR2016-01409, Foxhill filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Opposition to Motion for Joinder, IPR2016-01409, Paper 10 (“Reply to
`PO”) and a Reply to GeneriCo’s Opposition to Motion for Joinder,
`IPR2016-01409, Paper 11 (“Reply to GeneriCo”).
`
`
`2 Citations are to IPR2016-01386 as representative of corresponding papers
`in both cases unless otherwise indicated.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`The Petitions
`A.
`Mylan and Foxhill each represent that “Grounds 1–4 are practical
`copies of the grounds presented in the petition in IPR2016-00297, including
`Grounds 3 and 4 that were instituted by the Board, challenging the same
`claims over the same prior art and using the same arguments and expert
`testimony.” Pet. 4. Mylan and Foxhill each further represent that the
`“Petition has been revised in portions only to address certain formalities,
`such as, e.g., mandatory notice information, counsel, related matters, etc.”
`Joinder Mot. 2. In addition, Mylan and Foxhill each represent that “[t]he
`Digenis Declaration is an exact copy of Dr. Digenis’ declaration from
`IPR2016-00297.” Pet. 4.
`Mylan and Foxhill each request institution “only on the Grounds
`instituted in IPR2016-00297, i.e., Grounds 3 and 4 (which the Board
`determined subsumed Ground 1), as to claims 1 and 16, and not on Grounds
`1 and 2.” Pet. 1.
`We incorporate our analysis from our institution decision in the 297
`IPR. IPR2016-00297, Paper 13 (“Dec.”), 4–30. For the same reasons, we
`conclude that Mylan and Foxhill have each demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on Grounds 3 or 4 in the alternative. Dec. 4–27; Pet.
`4–51. Because Mylan and Foxhill do not seek institution based on Grounds
`1 and 2, Pet. 1, and for the same reasons as stated in the 297 IPR, Dec. 27–
`30, we do not institute review based on either of Grounds 1 or 2.
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`
`B. Motions for Joinder
`Based on authority delegated to us by the Director, we have discretion
`to join a party to another inter partes review, subject to certain exceptions
`not present here. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. As the
`moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing entitlement
`to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for
`joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate;
`(2) identify any new ground(s) of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`(3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for
`the existing review; and (4) address how briefing and/or discovery may be
`simplified to minimize schedule impact. See Joinder Mot. 3; Kyocera Corp.
`v. SoftView LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)
`(Paper 15) (representative); Frequently Asked Question H5 on the Board’s
`website at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`Here, Mylan and Foxhill each represent, and Patent Owner does not
`dispute, that the Petitions are “practical copies of the grounds presented in
`the petition in IPR2016-00297 . . . and challenge the same claims over the
`same prior art and using the same arguments and expert testimony.” Joinder
`Mot. 1; 1386 PO Opp. 4; 1409 PO Opp. 3. Mylan and Foxhill further
`represent that they each intend to pursue only Grounds 3 and 4, as instituted
`in the 297 IPR. Joinder Mot. 1. In addition, Mylan and Foxhill each seek to
`participate in the 297 IPR proceeding “in a limited capacity as an
`understudy” to GeneriCo. Id. at 2.
`Based on the above, Mylan and Foxhill argue that joinder is
`“appropriate because it will promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution of patentability issues, including the determination of validity of
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`the challenged claims of the ’688 patent,” and potentially minimize issues
`and resolve any litigation regarding the challenged claims. Id. at 4–5. In
`addition, Mylan and Foxhill contend no new grounds are presented, and
`granting joinder will not prejudice Patent Owner or GeneriCo or
`significantly affect the trial schedule in the case. Id. at 5–6.
`Lastly, Mylan and Foxhill indicate that discovery and briefing can be
`simplified here because, in their understudy role, as long as GeneriCo
`remains a party (i.e., does not reach a settlement with Patent Owner), each of
`Mylan and Foxhill “will not submit any separate filings unless it disagrees
`with” GeneriCo’s position “(which it is not anticipated), and in the event of
`any disagreement it will request authorization from the Board to submit a
`short separate filing directed only to points of disagreement” with GeneriCo.
`Id. at 7. As long as GeneriCo remains a party, Mylan and Foxhill will not
`seek to submit any new declarations or request any additional depositions or
`time during depositions. Id. at 8.
`Patent Owner states that it “would not oppose” Foxhill’s joinder, if the
`Board orders “meaningful protections” to ensure that Foxhill’s participation
`does not complicate, disrupt, or delay the 297 IPR. 1409 PO Opp. 1. Patent
`Owner opposes Mylan’s joinder, however, asserting that it will “complicate,
`disrupt, and delay” the 297 IPR. 1386 PO Opp. 1. Patent Owner further
`asserts that, absent joinder, Mylan’s petition is time-barred. Id. at 2.
`GeneriCo states that it “does not agree to work with Foxhill” and
`“does not consent to sharing its draft briefs with Foxhill.” GeneriCo Opp. 2,
`7. GeneriCo states that its expert, Dr. Digenis, “is not contractually
`obligated to testify on Foxhill’s behalf” and “would be contractually
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`precluded” from providing a supplemental deposition in the event GeneriCo
`is no longer involved in the 297 IPR. Id. at 1, 6.
`In its reply briefs, Foxhill reiterates that it “agrees to accept a back-
`seat role to GeneriCo in any consolidated proceeding, without any right to
`separate briefing or discovery.” Reply to GeneriCo 7. Foxhill clarifies that
`“via its motion for joinder, [Foxhill] requests permission to be added to the
`case caption as a petitioner in IPR2016-00297, without any active
`involvement that is separate from GeneriCo, unless authorized by the PTAB
`upon a request pertaining to an issue unique to [Foxhill].” Id.; see also
`Reply to PO 7 (same).
`In view of Mylan’s and Foxhill’s agreement to be limited to an
`“understudy” or “back-seat” role with no active involvement separate from
`GeneriCo, and their agreement to be limited to evidence and arguments
`presented in the GeneriCo Petition in relation to instituted Grounds 3 or 4 (in
`the alternative), we conclude Mylan and Foxhill have demonstrated that
`joinder will not unduly complicate, disrupt, or delay the 297 IPR.
`GeneriCo’s concerns are addressed by our order below, which provides that
`Mylan’s and Foxhill’s participation shall be subject to GeneriCo’s
`acquiescence so long as GeneriCo remains a party to the proceeding. Thus,
`we grant Mylan’s and Foxhill’s Motions for Joinder and, as a result, join
`those parties to the 297 IPR.
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that inter partes reviews are instituted in Case IPR2016-
`01386 and Case IPR2016-01409 as to claims 1 and 16 of the ’688 patent, but
`only based on the same grounds instituted in Case IPR2016-00297;
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that each of Mylan’s and Foxhill’s Motion for
`Joinder is granted, and Mylan and Foxhill are joined as parties to Case
`IPR2016-00297;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which an inter partes
`review were instituted in Case IPR2016-00297 remain unchanged, and no
`other grounds are instituted in the joined proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Case IPR2016-01386, and Case
`IPR2016-01409 are instituted, joined, and administratively terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined proceedings shall be
`made in Case IPR2016-00297;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in Case
`IPR2016-00297 (Paper 14), as modified by stipulation of the parties in Case
`IPR2016-00297 (see, e.g., Paper 28), shall govern the schedules of the
`joined proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the participation by Mylan and Foxhill in
`the briefing, discovery, depositions, and oral argument of the joined
`proceedings shall be subject to GeneriCo’s acquiescence to their
`participation so long as GeneriCo remains a party to the proceeding and,
`absent our express authorization, Mylan and Foxhill shall not file papers or
`exhibits apart from GeneriCo;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in Case IPR2016-00297
`shall be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance
`with the attached example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the files of Case IPR2016-00297, Case IPR2016-01386, and Case
`IPR2016-01409.
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01386; IPR2016-01409
`Patent 8,865,688
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016-00297):
`Zachary Silbersher
`Gaston Kroub
`KROUB, SILBERSHER & KOLMYKOV PLLC
`zsibersher@kskiplaw.com
`info@kskiplaw.com
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016-01386):
`Robert L. Florence
`Micheal L. Binns
`Karen L. Carroll
`PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP
`robertflorence@parkerpoe.com
`michealbinns@parkerpoe.com
`karencarroll@parkerpoe.com
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016-01409):
`William Hare
`Gabriela Materassi
`MCNEELY HARE & WAR LLP
`bill@miplaw.com
`materassi@miplaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Mary W. Bourke
`Preston H. Heard
`WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDBRIDGE & RICE LLP
`mbourke@wcsr.com
`pheard@wcsr.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper: 9
`
`
` Entered: Nov. 30, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GENERICO, LLC, FLAT LINE CAPITAL LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`FOXHILL CAPITAL PARTNERS, and MYCONOVO, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002973
`Patent 8,865,688 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`3 Case IPR2016-01386 and Case IPR2016-01409 have been joined with 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