`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 60
`
` Entered: May 21, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CIPLA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00807
`Patent 8,168,620 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, ZHENYU YANG, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Joint Motion to Terminate
`35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00807
`Patent 8,168,620 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On May 17, 2018, Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Petitioner”) and
`Cipla Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a joint motion to terminate this
`proceeding pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72 and
`42.74. Paper 58 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). The Motion was accompanied by a
`true, unredacted copy of a settlement agreement (Ex. 2183), and a joint
`request to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential
`information, to be kept separate from the patent file, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b) and 42.74(c) (Paper 59).
`The parties represent in their joint motion that they “have settled their
`dispute” and have “executed a settlement agreement to terminate this inter
`partes review.” Mot. 1. Additionally, the parties state that there are no
`related inter partes review proceedings, and that the related district court
`cases, Meda Pharms. Inc. et al v. Apotex Inc., 14-1453-LPS (D. Del.), Meda
`Pharms. Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 15-785-LPS (D. Del.), Meda
`Pharms. Inc. v. Perrigo UK FINCO Ltd. P’ship., 16-794 (D. Del.), have also
`settled. Id. at 4–5.
`The Board generally expects that a case “will terminate after the filing
`of a settlement agreement, unless the Board has already decided the merits.”
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14,
`2012); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Here, although the Board instituted an
`inter partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 24–26, 29, and 42–44 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,168,620 B2, the Board has not heard oral argument and has not
`decided the merits. Under the circumstances presented here, therefore, we
`determine that it is appropriate to terminate this proceeding with respect to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00807
`Patent 8,168,620 B2
`
`
`
`both Petitioner and Patent Owner. Accordingly, we grant the parties’ joint
`motion to terminate.
`We also determine that the parties have complied with the
`requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) to have the settlement agreement
`treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the files
`of the patent at issue in this proceeding. Thus, we grant the Joint Request to
`treat the settlement agreement as business confidential.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the joint motion to terminate the proceedings is
`GRANTED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint request to treat the parties’
`settlement agreement as business confidential information, to be kept
`separate from the patent file, is GRANTED; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the instant proceeding is TERMINATED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00807
`Patent 8,168,620 B2
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Michael R. Houston
`Joseph P. Meara
`James P. McParland
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`mhouston@foley.com
`jmeara-pgp@foley.com
`jmcparland@foley.com
`
`Tyler C. Liu
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`tliu@agpharm.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Dennies Varughese
`Deborah A. Sterling
`Adam C. LaRock
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`dvarughe-PTAB@skgf.com
`dsterlin-PTAB@skgf.com
`alarock-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
