`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 72
`Entered: April 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP.,
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`ACTAVIS ELIZABETH LLC, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., and
`SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2017-008541
`Patent US 9,187,405 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`KRISTI L. R. SAWERT, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-01550, IPR2017-01946, and IPR2017-01929 have been
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`In our Order of March 29, 2018, we permitted Petitioner to file a sur-reply
`responding to Patent Owner’s reply in support of its contingent motion to amend.
`Paper 66, 3. By email dated April 4, 2018, Patent Owner seeks clarification
`regarding the scope of argument and supporting testimony permitted in the
`authorized sur-reply. See Ex. 1013.
`Our Guidance with respect to Patent Owner replies to Petitioners’
`oppositions to motions to amend applies equally with respect to Petitioner’s sur-
`reply here:
`A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`opposition. § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for
`decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence
`will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not attempt
`to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples of
`indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new
`evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability
`or unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new
`evidence that could have been presented in a prior filing.
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`Accordingly, Petitioner’s sur-reply and any supporting expert testimony shall be
`limited to responding to arguments and citations to expert testimony expressly set
`forth in Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`contingent motion to amend.
`
`
`SO ORDERED
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`FOR PETITIONER APOTEX:
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER ARGENTUM:
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`Deborah H. Yellin
`Shannon M. Lentz
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`trea@crowell.com
`dyellin@crowell.com
`slentz@crowell.com
`
`Tyler C. Liu
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
`tliu@agpharm.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER TEVA:
`
`Amanda Hollis
`Eugene Goryunov
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`Amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`egoryunov@kirkland.com
`
`FOR PETITIONER SUN PHARMA:
`
`Samuel Park
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00854
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Jane M. Love
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`jlove@gibsondunn.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
