`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: August 9, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`ARAGEN BIOSCIENCE, INC.
`AND
`TRANSPOSAGEN BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`KYOWA HAKKO KIRIN CO., LTD,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01252
`Patent 6,946,292
`
`Case IPR2017-01254
`Patent 8,067,232 B2
`
`Case IPR2017-01262
`Patent 7,425,446 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, ERICA A. FRANKLIN,
`and ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER – CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDING
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Background
`
`IPR2017-01252; IPR2017-01254; and IPR2017-01262
`Patents 6,946,292; 8,067,232 B2; and 7,425,446 B2.
`
`
`
`On April 6, 2017, Petitioner filed two petitions requesting inter partes
`
`review of two of Patent Owner’s patents, US 6,946,292 and US 8,067,232,
`and on April 11, 2016, filed a third petition seeking review of US 7,425,446.
`
`On July 26, 2017, Patent Owner filed a preliminary response in IPR
`2017-01262 (Paper 8), and on August 1, 2017, Patent Owner filed a
`preliminary response in IPR2017-01254 (Paper 9). Patent Owner has not yet
`filed a preliminary response in IPR2017-01252 and is not obligated to.
`
`On August 4, 2017, Petitioner’s counsel requested a conference call
`with the Board to discuss a request for the Petitioner to file a reply to the
`Patent Owner’s preliminary statements in all three reviews (assuming one is
`filed in IPR2017-01252).
`
`II. The conference call
`
`A conference call was scheduled for 2PM Eastern Time on August 8,
`2017. Present for the Board were Judges Moore, Franklin, and Pollock.
`Present for Petitioner was Mr. Vogel and Mr. Manske. Present for Patent
`Owner were Mr. Platt and Mr. Insogna.
`
`Petitioner raised the issue of Dr. Van Ness’s testimony, in this series of
`reviews, and in a related litigation. Dr. Van Ness has testified in each of the
`proceedings, his testimony similarly designated in each as Exhibit 1007.
`
`According to Petitioner, Patent Owner has utilized the cross-
`examination testimony of Dr. Van Ness in the related proceeding in a manner
`Petitioner deems improper. As such, Petitioner seeks permission to reply to
`point out the impropriety with specificity.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01252; IPR2017-01254; and IPR2017-01262
`Patents 6,946,292; 8,067,232 B2; and 7,425,446 B2.
`
`III. Discussion
`
`A reply may be filed is good cause exists for the reply. 37 CFR
`
`§42.108. That a witness has testified elsewhere and that testimony may be
`used against the witness does not seem out of the ordinary to us under the
`instant facts. Consequently, we do not find that good cause exists at this time
`to permit a reply.
`
`In this case, we determine that an appropriate context for understanding
`the cross-examination testimony cited in the preliminary response would be
`beneficial to the decision-making process, without any additional argument
`raised. Consequently, we enter the following Order.
`
`IV. Order
`
`Petitioner shall file the complete deposition transcript(s) of Dr. Van
`
`Ness as an exhibit in the record of each proceeding as soon as practicable.
`Petitioner may, no later than August 20, 2017, submit a paper in each
`proceeding, identifying by page and line number, portions of the transcript it
`feels will aid the Board in understanding the context of the testimony cited by
`the Patent Owner. The Paper shall not exceed five pages and shall not contain
`any argument or discussion.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01252; IPR2017-01254; and IPR2017-01262
`Patents 6,946,292; 8,067,232 B2; and 7,425,446 B2.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Bryan Vogel
`Miles Finn
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`bvogel@robinskaplan.com
`mfinn@robinskaplan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Anthony Insogna
`Sean Christian Platt
`Astrid Spain
`JONES DAY
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`cplatt@jonesday.com
`arspain@jonesday.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
