Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 56
`
`
`
` Entered: December 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC. and AMGEN MANUFACTURING LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
` ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 56
`
`
`
` Entered: December 4, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORP.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AMGEN INC. and AMGEN MANUFACTURING LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
`CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
` ORDER
`Oral Hearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.70
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`
`
`Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex” or “Petitioner”) and Amgen
`Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Limited (“Amgen” or “Patent Owner”)
`requested a hearing in the above listed proceeding pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.70. Papers 38 and 39, filed October 12, 2017. The requests are granted.
`This proceeding will be heard on December 13, 2017, beginning at
`1:00 PM Eastern Time on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600
`Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA. Each party will have 60 minutes of
`argument time.
`In the hearing, Petitioner will argue first and may present arguments
`regarding the challenged claims on which we instituted trial and Petitioner’s
`Motion(s) to Exclude, as appropriate. Patent Owner then will have the
`opportunity to respond to Petitioner’s arguments, its Motion(s) to Exclude,
`and discuss its Motion to Submit Supplemental Information, as needed.
`Next, Petitioner may use any time it has reserved for rebuttal to respond to
`Patent Owner’s arguments, Patent Owner’s Motion(s) to Exclude, and
`Motion to Submit Supplemental Evidence. Finally, Patent Owner may use
`any time it has reserved for rebuttal to respond only to Petitioner’s
`arguments regarding Patent Owner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information and Motion(s) to Exclude. No other arguments will be heard.
`There is a strong public policy interest in making all information
`presented in these proceedings public, as the review determines the
`patentability of claims in an issued patent and thus affects the rights of the
`public. This policy is reflected in part, for example, in 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1)
`and 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1), which provide that the file of any inter partes
`review or post grant review be made available to the public, except that any
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`
`petition or document filed with the intent that it be sealed shall, if
`accompanied by a motion to seal, be treated as sealed pending the outcome
`of the ruling on the motion. Although there are motions to seal pending,
`neither party has requested that the oral hearing be closed to the public.
`Accordingly, the hearings will be open to the public for in-person
`attendance, which will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis.
`The Board will provide a court reporter. A transcript for the hearing
`will constitute the official record of the hearing. Any demonstrative exhibits
`must be served seven business days before the hearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.70(b).
`Demonstrative exhibits are not evidence and may not introduce new
`evidence or arguments. Instead, demonstrative exhibits 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 No. IPR2013-00041 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65)
`regarding the appropriate content of demonstrative exhibits.
`Any issue regarding demonstrative exhibits should be resolved at least
`three days prior to the hearing by way of a joint telephone conference call to
`the Board. The parties are responsible for requesting such a conference
`sufficiently in advance of the hearing to accommodate this requirement. Any
`objection to demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented will be
`considered waived. Demonstratives should be filed at the Board no later than
`two days before the hearing. A hard copy of the demonstratives should be
`provided to the court reporter at the hearing. Please note that, as some
`judges may attend remotely, failure to file the demonstratives might
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`
`mean the remotely attending judges may not be able to view the
`demonstratives.
`Questions regarding specific audio-visual equipment should be
`directed to the Board at (571) 272-9797. Requests for audio-visual
`equipment must be made 5 days in advance of the hearing date. The
`request is to be sent to Trials@uspto.gov. If the request is not timely
`received, the equipment may not be available on the day of the hearing.
`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 attending the oral
`argument, the parties should initiate a joint telephone conference with the
`Board no later than two business days prior to the oral hearing to discuss the
`matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01542
`Patent 8,952,138 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Teresa Rea
`trea@crowell.com
`
`Deborah Yellin
`dyellin@crowell.com
`
`Vincent Galluzzo
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`Michael Jacobs
`mjacobs@crowell.com
`
`Shannon Lentz
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Arlene Chow
`Arlene.chow@hoganlovells.com
`
`Catherine Nyarady
`cnyarady@paulweiss.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
