`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`ICOS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166 B1
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2017-01762
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ............................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 3
`
`A. Joinder is Appropriate ................................................................................... 4
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability Are Asserted ..................................... 4
`
`C. Joinder Will Not Impact the Existing Schedule .......................................... 5
`
`D. Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified................................................... 6
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 7
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioner Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Argentum” or “Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully requests joinder pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(b) of the above-captioned inter partes review (“Argentum IPR”) with the
`
`pending inter partes review involving the same patent and the same ground of
`
`invalidity in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. ICOS Corporation, IPR2017-00323
`
`(“Mylan IPR”), which was instituted on June 12, 2017. Joinder is appropriate
`
`because it will promote efficient and consistent resolution of the validity of a single
`
`patent and will not prejudice any of the parties to the Mylan IPR.
`
`Argentum notes that on July 7, 2017, Mylan and Patent Owner filed a Joint
`
`Motion to Terminate the Mylan IPR. IPR2017-00323, Paper 18. Argentum is also
`
`aware that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (“Dr. Reddy’s”) moved for joinder of its
`
`petition (“DRL IPR”) to the Mylan IPR on July 10, 2017. IPR2017-01757, Motion
`
`for Joinder, Paper 3. Institution of the Argentum IPR and joinder with the Mylan
`
`IPR will ensure that at least one petitioner remains to complete trial at the Board.
`
`Joinder here would comport with the Board’s decisions in two IPRs where the
`
`Board granted joinder of a second IPR just one day before the Board terminated the
`
`petitioner of the first IPR: AT&T Services, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2017-01237, (PTAB May 10, 2017) (Paper 10) (granting joinder to second
`
`IPR); Netflix, Inc. v. Convergent Media Solutions, LLC, Case IPR2016-01814,
`
`(PTAB May 11, 2017) (Paper 15) (terminating only the petitioner of the first IPR).
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`Although a motion was filed to terminate the Mylan IPR on July 7th, joinder
`
`of the Argentum IPR is still appropriate. First, the Board’s decision to grant joinder
`
`in the Convergent IPRs is applicable here, as the Board has yet to grant Mylan’s and
`
`Patent Owner’s Joint Motion to Terminate. Second, joinder promotes efficiency.
`
`Should the Board deny Argentum’s Motion for Joinder and opt to institute
`
`Argentum’s petition as a novel IPR, the Board must then restart the review process,
`
`which would duplicate past efforts. By granting Argentum’s joinder to Mylan’s
`
`pending IPR, the Board will ensure that time and resources will not be wasted by
`
`redoing the review of the same ground and analysis. Finally, public policy weighs
`
`in favor of joinder—restarting the process by instituting Argentum’s IPR as new
`
`would only serve to delay the ultimate determination of the patentability of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), as
`
`it is submitted no later than one month after June 12, 2017, the date on which the
`
`Mylan IPR was instituted.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`On November 22, 2016, Mylan filed a Petition for inter partes review
`
`challenging claims 1-12 of United States Patent No. 6,943,166 (the “’166 patent”),
`
`which was assigned Case No. IPR2017-00323. On June 12, 2017, the Board
`
`instituted review of claims 1-12 on the following ground:
`
`(1) Claims 1-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`’675 PCT (Daugan) in view of the Sildenafil NDA and FDA Guideline.
`
`The accompanying Petition filed by Argentum presents only the identical
`
`ground on which the Mylan IPR was instituted.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) permits joinder of inter
`
`partes review proceedings. The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If 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 that the
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers the impact of
`
`substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the rules
`
`for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution
`
`of every proceeding.” Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper No. 17 (July 29, 2013) at 3. The Board should consider “the policy
`
`preference for joining a party that does not present new issues that might complicate
`
`or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under this framework, joinder of the
`
`present Argentum IPR with the Mylan IPR is appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`
`(3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified.” Id. at 4. Each of these factors is addressed fully below.
`
`A.
`
`Joinder is Appropriate
`
`
`
`Joinder with the Mylan IPR is appropriate here because the Argentum IPR is
`
`limited to the same ground instituted in the Mylan IPR and relies on the same prior
`
`art analysis and expert testimony submitted by Mylan. The Argentum IPR is
`
`identical with respect to the ground raised in the Mylan IPR, and does not include
`
`any grounds not raised in that proceeding.
`
`Joinder is also appropriate because it will promote the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of patentability issues, including the determination of
`
`validity of the challenged claims of the ’166 patent. For example, a final written
`
`decision on the validity of the ’166 patent has the potential to minimize issues and
`
`potentially resolve any litigation with respect to the ’166 patent. As discussed
`
`above, joinder also represents the most efficient use of Board resources, as the
`
`Board could then avoid de novo review of the same IPR.
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability Are Asserted
`
`
`
`The Argentum IPR does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. As
`
`mentioned above, the Argentum IPR presents only the instituted ground from the
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`Mylan IPR. Additionally, the Argentum IPR is based on the same prior art analysis
`
`and expert testimony submitted by Mylan.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Existing Schedule
`
`
`
`Joinder in this case will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review
`
`in a timely manner. In this case, joinder will not affect the Board’s ability to issue a
`
`final written decision within the one-year timeframe because Argentum agrees to
`
`adhere to all deadlines set forth in the Mylan IPR Scheduling Order. IPR2017-
`
`00323, Paper 13. Argentum is introducing no additional prior art and the expert
`
`declarations of Argentum’s experts are substantially identical to the declaration of
`
`Mylan’s experts. Therefore, the trial schedule for the Mylan IPR should not be
`
`adversely impacted by Argentum’s joinder. Argentum is seeking Mylan’s consent
`
`to retain Mylan’s experts, Dr. George Grass, Pharm.D., Ph.D. and Dr. Muta M. Issa,
`
`M.D., M.B.A., but no consent has been given. Argentum’s retained experts agree
`
`with, and have adopted the opinions of Mylan’s experts. Additionally, in the event
`
`that Dr. Reddy's allows Argentum to rely directly on the testimony of their experts,
`
`and make them available for depositions with respect to the Argentum IPR then
`
`Argentum would agree not to make Dr. Culley C. Carson III, M.D. and Dr. Jackie
`
`Corbin, Ph.D. available for deposition such that their testimony is not considered in
`
`the Argentum IPR.
`
`If the Board were to join both the DRL IPR and the Argentum IPR to the
`
`Mylan IPR, Argentum anticipates participating in the proceeding in a limited
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`capacity as an understudy, absent termination of Dr. Reddy’s as a party.
`
`Accordingly, Argentum does not believe that any extension of the trial schedule will
`
`be required as a result of joinder.
`
`D. Discovery and Briefing Can Be Simplified
`
`
`
`Assuming that the Mylan IPR will be terminated, the need to depose two sets
`
`of experts will be avoided. Moreover, the deposition of Argentum’s experts should
`
`be no more complicated than the deposition of Mylan’s experts because the analysis,
`
`materials relied on, and conclusions are essentially the same. Because the Argentum
`
`IPR is identical to the Mylan IPR with respect to grounds of unpatentability raised
`
`and instituted in the Mylan IPR, briefing in a joined IPR, especially with Mylan
`
`terminated, will not be more complicated. Moreover, because Mylan and Patent
`
`Owner have settled, and assuming that Mylan will be terminated, “there will no
`
`longer be issues of cooperation and duplication among petitioners.” See Qualcomm
`
`Inc., v. Bandspeed, Inc., Case IPR2014-00556, (PTAB Nov. 16, 2015) (Paper 21 at
`
`5) (granting joinder in the face of a Motion to Terminate a first IPR).
`
`In the case where the only remaining parties to the Mylan IPR are Dr.
`
`Reddy’s and Argentum, the Board may order petitioners to consolidate filings and to
`
`limit Argentum to no additional filings in its understudy role. As long as Dr.
`
`Reddy’s remains a party, Argentum will not submit any separate filings unless it
`
`disagrees with Dr. Reddy’s position, and in the event of such disagreement it will
`
`submit a short separate filing directed only to the points of disagreement. The Board
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`may allow the Patent Owner a corresponding number of pages to respond to any
`
`separate filings. See Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper
`
`17, at 8-9. Moreover, as long as Dr. Reddy’s allows Argentum to retain the same
`
`experts, then Argentum agrees not to receive any separate cross-examination or re-
`
`direct examination time and that all cross-examinations will occur within the
`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules to one party.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Argentum respectfully requests that the
`
`Argentum IPR be instituted and joined with the Mylan IPR.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 12, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Kevin B. Laurence/
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Registration No. 38,219
`
`Matthew C. Phillips
`Registration No. 43,403
`
`Tyler Liu
`Registration No. 72,126
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105, the undersigned certifies that on
`
`July 12, 2017, a complete copy of the foregoing Motion for Joinder was served via
`
`overnight delivery on the Patent Owner by serving the correspondence address of
`
`record for the ʼ166 Patent:
`
`MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive
`6300 Willis Tower
`Chicago IL, 60606-6357
`
`ICOS CORPORATION
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
`P.O. Box 6288
`Patent Division
`Indianapolis, IN 46206-6288
`
`
`
`Courtesy copies of the foregoing were also served via overnight delivery on the
`counsel of record for the Petitioner and Patent Owner in Mylan Pharmaceuticals
`Inc. v. ICOS Corporation, Case No. IPR2017-00323 as follows:
`
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,943,166
`
`ICOS Corporation
`
`
`Mark J. Feldstein
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Yieyie Yang
`Maureen D. Queler
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`
`Mark J. Stewart
`Dan L. Wood
`Gerald P. Keleher
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Lilly Corporate Center
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`
`
`
`
`/Kevin B. Laurence/
`Kevin B. Laurence
`Registration No. 38,219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`