throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: August 9, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`_______________
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Instituting Inter Partes Review and Granting Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108; 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Argentum”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,187,405 B2 (“the ’405 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Along with the
`Petition, Argentum filed a Motion for Joinder to join this proceeding with
`IPR2017-00854. Paper 3 (“Mot.”). Argentum filed the Petition and Motion
`for Joinder in the present proceeding on June 9, 2017, within one month
`after we instituted trial in IPR2017-00854. Novartis AG, (“Novartis”) has
`not filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition, and any such response
`would have been due September 16, 2017.
`As explained further below, we institute trial on the same grounds as
`instituted in IPR2017-00854 and grant Argentum’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`II.
`DISCUSSION
`In IPR2017-00854, Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”)
`challenged claims 1–6 of the ’405 Patent on the following grounds:
`Ground Claims
`References
`Basis
`1
`1–6
`Kovarik1 and Thomson
`§ 103
`2
`1–6
`Chiba,2 Kappos 2005,3 and Budde4
`§ 103
`
`
`1 Kovarik and Appel-Dingemanse, WO 2006/058316, published June 1,
`2006.
`2 Chiba et al., US 6,004,565, issued Dec. 21, 1999. Ex. 1006.
`3 Kappos et al., “FTY720 in Relapsing MS: Results of a Double-Blind
`Placebo-Controlled Trial with a Novel Oral Immunomodulator,” 252 (Suppl
`2) J. NEUROLOGY Abstract O141 (2005). .
`4 Budde, et al., “First Human Trial of FTY720, a Novel Immunomodulator,
`in Stable Renal Transplant Patients,” 13 J. AM. SOC. NEPHROLOGY 1073-
`1083 (2002). .
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`Ground Claims
`3
`1–6
`
`
`References
`Kappos 20105
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`
`After considering the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response, we instituted trial in IPR2017-00854 on each of the three asserted
`grounds. IPR2017-00854, Paper 11, 27.
`Argentum’s Petition in the instant matter is substantively identical to
`Apotex’s Petition, challenging the same claims based on the same art and the
`same grounds. Compare IPR2017-01550, Paper 1, with IPR2017-00854,
`Paper 2. For the reasons stated in our Decision on Institution in IPR2017-
`00854, we institute trial in this proceeding on the same three grounds.
`Having determined that institution is appropriate, we now turn to
`Argentum’s Motion for Joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Section 315(c)
`provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the Director institutes an inter partes
`review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311.”
`Id. When determining whether to grant a motion for joinder we consider
`factors such as timing and impact of joinder on the trial schedule, cost,
`discovery, and potential simplification of briefing. Kyocera Corp. v.
`SoftView, LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)
`(Paper 15).
`Under the circumstances of this case, we determine that joinder is
`appropriate. Argentum raises no new grounds of unpatentability from
`IPR2017-00854 and contends that there will be no impact on the trial
`
`
`5 Kappos et al., “A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Oral Fingolimod
`in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis,” 362(5) N. Engl. J. Med. 387–401.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`
`schedule previously set in that case. Mot. 5–6; see IPR2017-00854, Paper
`12. As Argentum notes, the Petition in IPR2017-00854 is substantively
`identical to the grounds, analysis, exhibits,6 and expert declarations relied on
`in the instant proceeding. Mot. 2, 4, 5. Argentum agrees “to coordinate with
`Apotex regarding questioning at depositions and at the oral hearing, which
`will not exceed the time allotted by the rules for one party, or as otherwise
`agreed between Apotex and Patent Owner or as ordered by the Board,” and
`invites the Board to adopt procedures similar to those used in other joinder
`cases, such as requiring Petitioners to make consolidated filings, for which
`Apotex is responsible. Id. at 6–7.
`Argentum represents that Apotex does not opposed Argentum’s
`Motion for Joinder. Id. at 3. By email to the Board dated August 4, 2017,
`counsel for Novartis represents that, 1) Novartis does not object to the
`Motion for Joinder; 2) Argentum has agreed not to pursue any arguments or
`make any filings separate from those made by Apotex; and 3) that Novartis
`will not submit a Preliminary Response in IPR2017-01550, and “instead will
`proceed with a Patent Owner Response to the Petitions in both IPRs
`simultaneously.” Ex. 3001.
`In view of the foregoing, we find that joinder based upon the
`conditions stated in Argentum’s Motion for Joinder and Novartis’ August 4
`email will have little or no impact on the timing, cost, or presentation of the
`trial on the instituted grounds. Moreover, discovery and briefing will be
`
`
`6 Argentum notes that it has “added one additional exhibit (EX1041) which
`is a copy of the Federal Circuit Decision of April 12, 2017 affirming the
`Final Written Decision in IPR2014-00784, an IPR related to the present
`proceeding.” Mot., 2–3.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`
`simplified if the proceedings are joined. Thus, without opposition to the
`Motion for Joinder from any of the parties, the Motion is granted.
`
`III.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that inter partes review is instituted in IPR2017-01550 on the
`following grounds:
`
`Claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
`combination of Kovarik and Thomson;
`
`Claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
`combination of Chiba, Kappos 2005, and Budde;
`
`Claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Kappos 2010.
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Argentum’s Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2017-00854 is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-01550 is terminated and joined to
`IPR2015-00854, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.72, 42.122, based on the
`conditions discussed above;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in place for
`IPR2017-00854 (Paper 12) shall govern the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all future filings in the joined proceeding shall
`be made only in IPR2017-00854;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2017-00854 for all
`further submissions shall be changed to add Argentum as a named Petitioner
`after Apotex, and to indicate by footnote the joinder of IPR2017-01550 to
`that proceeding, as indicated in the attached sample case caption;
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered into the
`record of IPR2017-00854.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jane M. Love
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`jlove@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER APOTEX (IPR2017-00854):
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01550
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`
`
`Sample Case Caption
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., and
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`NOVARTIS AG.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-008547
`Patent 9,187,405 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Case IPR2017-01550 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`7
`
`

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