`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`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
`
`