throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 8
`Entered: Aug. 1, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NALOX-1 PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADAPT PHARMA LIMITED, and
`OPIANT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case Nos.
`IPR2019-00688, IPR2019-00689, and IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`____________
`
`Before: ERICA A. FRANKLIN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`JACQUELINE T. HARLOW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`YANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688
`IPR2019-00689
`IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`
`
`On February 19, 2019, in each of the three above-captioned
`proceedings, Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–45 of U.S. Patent No. 9,468,747 B2.1 In its Preliminary
`Responses, Patent Owner contends the Petitions in IPR2019-00689 and
`IPR2019-00690 are “secondary, redundant petitions” because they “merely
`add[] grounds that make the same arguments with more complicated
`combinations of more references” than those set forth in IPR2019-00688.
`See, e.g., IPR2019-00690, Paper 6, 1–2. According to Patent Owner, “not
`only are large swaths of text word-for-word identical,” but each Petition
`“relies extensively on the Wyse reference that is the principal reference in
`Case IPR2019-00688.” Id. at 2. Patent Owner argues that we should
`exercise discretion to deny institution of IPR2019-00689 and IPR2019-
`00690 on this basis. Id.
`The Director has discretion to deny a petition under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a). See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140
`(“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the
`Patent Office’s discretion.”). The Board takes into account various
`considerations when exercising discretion on behalf of the Director. See
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-
`01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (Section II.B.4.i. designated as
`
`1 In all, Petitioner has challenged five patents with 15 separate petitions filed
`at or about the same time. IPR2019-00688, Paper 5, 1–2 (listing petitions
`for inter partes review filed by Petitioner against patents held by Patent
`Owner). According to Patent Owner, all of these patents relate to the same
`product, “NARCAN® Nasal Spray 4 mg.” IPR2019-00688, Paper 6, 1.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688
`IPR2019-00689
`IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`
`precedential) (stating factors considered in Board’s exercise of discretion
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Although the facts of General Plastic concern
`serial or “follow-on” petitions, the August 2018 Update to the Office Trial
`Practice Guide notes
`[t]here may be other reasons besides the “follow-on” petition
`context where the “effect . . . on the economy, the integrity of the
`patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the
`ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” favors
`denying a petition even though some claims meet the threshold
`standards for institution.
`Office Trial Practice Guide August 2018 Update2 referenced at 83 Fed. Reg.
`39,989 (“August 2018 TPG Update”) (Aug. 13, 2018), at 10 (quoting
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b)). With particular regard to “parallel petitions,” i.e.,
`“[t]wo or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same
`time,” the July 2019 Update to the Office Trial Practice Guide explains that
`such petitions “may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board
`and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency
`concerns.” Office Trial Practice Guide July 2019 Update3 referenced at 84
`Fed. Reg. 33,925 (“July 2019 TPG Update”) (July 16, 2019), at 26 (citing
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).
`Maintaining multiple, concurrent proceedings per patent presents a
`significant burden for the Board, because, among other things, the Board
`endeavors to assign all such cases to the same panel. See SOP 1 (Rev. 15),
`
`
`2 Available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP.
`3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-
`practice-guide-update3.pdf.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688
`IPR2019-00689
`IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`
`III.G.3. Additionally, when there are other related patents challenged by
`multiple petitions at the same time, as is the case here, this can undermine
`the Office’s ability to complete proceedings in a timely manner and may
`place an unfair burden on Patent Owner. See August 2018 TPG Update at
`10; cf. General Plastic, slip op. at 16 (requiring the Board to consider ability
`to meet statutory deadlines as an institution factor); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)
`(“[The rules] shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`resolution of every proceeding.”).
`We agree with Patent Owner that the number of Petitions challenging
`the same patent here may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the
`Board and Patent Owner, particularly if we determine the Petitions rely on
`substantially overlapping grounds and theories. Accordingly, the panel
`issues this Order under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 to give the parties an opportunity to
`focus the Board’s limited resources on genuine issues in dispute.
`Within 7 days of this Order, Petitioner shall provide a Notice not to
`exceed 3 pages identifying (1) a ranking of the three Petitions in the order in
`which it wishes the panel to consider the merits, if the Board uses its
`discretion to institute any of the Petitions, and (2) a succinct explanation of
`the differences between the Petitions, why the differences are material, and
`why the Board should exercise its discretion to consider the additional
`Petitions if it identifies a Petition that satisfies Petitioner’s burden under 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board encourages Petitioner to use a table to aid in
`identifying the similarities and differences between the Petitions.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688
`IPR2019-00689
`IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`
`
`If it so chooses, Patent Owner may, within 7 days of the receipt of
`Petitioner’s Notice, provide a Response not to exceed 3 pages, stating its
`position with respect to any of the differences identified by Petitioner. In
`particular, Patent Owner should explain whether the differences identified
`by Petitioner are material and in dispute. If stating that reasons are not
`material or in dispute, Patent Owner should clearly proffer any necessary
`stipulations. For example, Patent Owner may seek to avoid additional
`Petitions by proffering a stipulation that certain claim limitations or priority
`dates are not disputed.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner are instructed to file the same paper in all
`proceedings and use this Order’s case caption format. The panel will
`consider the parties’ submissions in determining whether to exercise its
`discretion to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`It is
`ORDERED that within 7 days of this Order, Petitioner shall file a
`
`Notice consistent with the foregoing instructions; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within 7 days of Petitioner’s Notice, if it
`chooses to, Patent Owner may file a Response consistent with the foregoing
`instructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00688
`IPR2019-00689
`IPR2019-00690
`Patent No. 9,468,747 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Yelee Y. Kim
`Janine A. Carlan
`Richard Berman
`Bradford Frese
`Christopher Yaen
`ARENT FOX LLP
`Yelee.Kim@arentfox.com
`Janine.Carlan@arentfox.com
`Richard.Berman@arentfox.com
`Bradford.Frese@arentfox.com
`Christopher.Yaen@arentfox.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Robert F. Green
`Jessica Tyrus Mackay
`GREEN, GRIFFITH & BORG-BREEN, LLP
`rgreen@greengriffith.com
`jmackay@greengriffith.com
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

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