UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Novartis Pharma AG,
`Novartis Technology LLC,
`Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`———————
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Novartis Pharma AG,
`Novartis Technology LLC,
`Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Case IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`———————
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................ 1
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED .............. 3
`A.
`Reliance on Fintiv to Discretionarily Deny Institution
`Based on a Parallel ITC Investigation Frustrates
`Congressional Intent ................................................................... 4
`The Board’s Analysis of Certain Fintiv Factors Was
`Erroneous and Should Not Have Supported Denying
`Institution .................................................................................. 10
`1.
`Fintiv Factors 1, 2, 5, and 6 ............................................ 11
`2.
`Fintiv Factors 3 and 4 ..................................................... 14
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 15
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`I.
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) filed its inter partes review
`
`petition only 27 days after being accused of infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,220,631 (“the 631 patent”) in complaints filed in the International Trade
`
`Commission (ITC) and in district court by Patent Owner Novartis. By statute (28
`
`U.S.C. § 1659), the district court proceeding was stayed in favor of the ITC
`
`investigation. While the ITC investigation is moving forward, the ITC’s final
`
`determination on the validity of the 631 patent will have no preclusive effect and
`
`will not prevent Patent Owner from proceeding in district court.
`
`
`
`In its Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 10), Novartis argued, inter
`
`alia, that the Board should exercise its discretion pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`
`and deny institution of trial based on the pending ITC investigation. Novartis did
`
`not argue that institution should be denied based on the stayed district court case.
`
`Regeneron asked for and was granted permission to file a reply brief (Paper 13),
`
`and Novartis filed a sur-reply (Paper 14). As Regeneron explained, the facts here
`
`showed that Regeneron: (a) filed the instant petition before the ITC had even
`
`instituted an investigation based on Patent Owner’s complaint; (b) challenged
`
`every claim of the 631 patent; and (c) stipulated that it would not pursue any
`
`invalidity arguments in the ITC that would be the subject of an IPR trial. See Paper
`
`13 at 11-13. In short, these facts presented a clear case for instituting trial.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`
`
`Nonetheless, on January 15, 2021 the Board relied on Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (“Fintiv”) and exercised its
`
`“discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution” based solely on the
`
`pending ITC investigation. Paper 15 at 1. Regeneron now requests rehearing of the
`
`Board’s institution decision. The denial of institution here demonstrates that the
`
`Board has created a nearly per se rule that IPR trials are largely off-limits to ITC
`
`respondents. That outcome cannot be what Congress intended. It is an abuse of
`
`discretion for the Board to deny institution based on parallel proceedings before
`
`the ITC, which undisputedly cannot issue findings or render decisions on patent
`
`validity that have preclusive effect. The Board’s denial of institution in these
`
`circumstances is at odds with Congress’s intent that IPR proceedings “serve as a
`
`less-expensive alternative to courtroom litigation and provide additional access to
`
`the expertise of the Patent Office on questions of patentability.” See 157 Cong.
`
`Rec. S1352 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Udall).
`
`
`
`Regeneron will ask for Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) review of this
`
`request for rehearing, and requests that the POP hold that Fintiv should not be the
`
`basis for denying institution of IPRs when there is a parallel ITC investigation.1
`
`
`1
`Regeneron notes that this issue – reliance on the Fintiv factors as a basis to
`
`discretionarily deny IPRs based on a parallel ITC investigation – is also before the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), a “party dissatisfied with a decision may
`
`file a single request for rehearing.” The request must “specifically identify all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked….” Id.
`
`Institution decisions are reviewed on rehearing “for an abuse of discretion.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs when a ‘decision [i]s based on an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or … a clear
`
`error of judgment.’” Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., IPR2015-00369, Paper
`
`14 at 3 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2015) (citation omitted).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`The Board denied institution, finding that based on its “holistic review of all
`
`the Fintiv factors, the weight of the evidence sufficiently tips the balance in favor
`
`of exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” Paper 15 at 24.
`
`Regeneron recognizes that, because it is a precedential opinion, the Board is bound
`
`to follow and apply Fintiv when a question arises regarding the status of parallel
`
`litigation. Regeneron asserts, however, that application of the Fintiv factors when
`
`
`POP in Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2020-00754. See
`
`November 19, 2020 POP request by petitioners.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`the parallel litigation is an ITC investigation amounts to a “clear error of
`
`judgment” justifying rehearing.2
`
`A. Reliance on Fintiv to Discretionarily Deny Institution Based on a
`Parallel ITC Investigation Frustrates Congressional Intent
`The ITC does not have the power to cancel patent claims and its
`
`
`
`determinations cannot finally resolve questions of patent validity. Accordingly,
`
`discretionarily denying IPR institution based on a parallel ITC investigation is
`
`contrary to clear Congressional intent. See Paper 13 at 9-10; 157 Cong. Rec. S1352
`
`(daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Udall) (“Inter partes … proceedings are
`
`intended to serve as a less-expensive alternative to courtroom litigation and
`
`provide additional access to the expertise of the Patent Office on questions of
`
`patentability.”);3 see also S. Rep. No. 110-259, at 20 (2008) (stating that the
`
`purpose of the IPR procedure is to provide “a quick, inexpensive, and reliable
`
`alternative to district court litigation to resolve questions of patent validity”).
`
`When, as here, the petitioner has promptly filed its petition after service of an ITC
`
`
`2
`Regeneron is not impugning the judgment of the specific Board members in
`
`this IPR, who are required to apply precedential Board decisions. That is why
`
`Regeneron requests POP review of this request: to reconsider the appropriateness
`
`of relying on Fintiv to deny IPR institution based on a parallel ITC litigation.
`
`3
`
`Emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`complaint,4 relying on the Fintiv factors to deny institution turns Congressional
`
`intent on its head—Congress certainly never intended that an ITC investigation
`
`should be considered a viable substitute for the expertise of the Patent Office when
`
`the validity of a patent is at issue. See pp. 7-9 infra (explaining that the ITC defers
`
`to the expertise of the Patent Office on matters of patent validity).
`
`
`
`There is a multitude of evidence of Congress’s intent in this regard. Most
`
`importantly, Congress gave preclusive effect to a Board’s invalidity determination
`
`(subject to Federal Circuit review). 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) (“If the [Board] issues a
`
`final written decision … and the time for appeal has expired or any appeal has
`
`terminated, the Director shall issue and publish a certificate canceling any claim of
`
`the patent finally determined to be unpatentable….”). In striking contrast, a finding
`
`by the ITC regarding patent invalidity has no preclusive effect, even if the Federal
`
`Circuit affirms the ITC’s finding. See Hyosung TNC Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
`926 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Fintiv at 8-9 (citing Texas Instruments v.
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Paper 13 at 9-10.
`
`This is because the ITC’s “primary responsibility is to administer the trade laws,
`
`not the patent laws.” Tandon Corp. v. Intern. Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1019
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1987). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has made it abundantly clear that
`
`
`4
`Regeneron filed its petitions prior to institution of the ITC investigation.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`patent-related ITC findings “neither purport to be, nor can they be, regarded as
`
`binding interpretations of the U.S. patent laws in particular factual contexts.” Texas
`
`Instruments, 90 F.3d at 1568-1569.
`
`
`
`Congress thus intended that IPR proceedings serve to finally resolve issues
`
`of patent validity by statutorily mandating that (unlike the ITC) the Board’s
`
`invalidity decisions have preclusive effect. See Nichia Corp. v. Lighting Sci. Group
`
`Corp., IPR2019-01259, Paper 21 at 27-28 (PTAB Jan. 15, 2020) (“Nichia”)
`
`(instituting IPR and rejecting § 314(a) argument because, inter alia, “the ITC does
`
`not have the authority to invalidate a patent in a way that is applicable to other
`
`forums, and thus ITC decisions do not preempt issues addressed in an inter partes
`
`review proceeding”). This result benefits competition and serves one of Congress’s
`
`important purposes in enacting the America Invents Act. See H.R. Rep. 112-98, at
`
`69 (2011) (stating that IPRs “limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation
`
`costs”); 157 Cong. Rec. S1326 (Mar. 7, 2011) (Sen. Sessions) (stating that a goal
`
`of the AIA was to weed out “invalid patents … before they disrupt an entire
`
`industry”); see also Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374
`
`(2020) (stating that a purpose of IPRs is to “weed out bad patent claims
`
`efficiently”); Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U.S. 224, 234 (1892)
`
`(“[C]ompetition should not be repressed by worthless patents.”).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`
`
`Moreover, as further evidence of Congressional intent, Congress also
`
`explicitly provided for IPR proceedings to have estoppel effect in any pending or
`
`future litigations involving the patent, including in parallel ITC investigations. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) (“[T]he petitioner may not assert either in a civil action … or in
`
`a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under Section 337 of
`
`the Tariff Act of 1930 that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner
`
`raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.”). Notably,
`
`there are no analogous statutory provisions for any type of estoppel based on
`
`arguments made (or arguments that reasonably could have been made) before the
`
`ITC. This further confirms that, between the Board and the ITC, Congress’s clear
`
`preference was that the Board determine the issue of patent validity. It follows that
`
`Congress did not intend for the Board to defer such validity challenges to the ITC,
`
`an agency that has no role in the vetting and issuance of patents in the first instance
`
`and is primarily concerned with trade laws. Tandon, 831 F.2d at 1019.
`
`
`
`Consistent with this clear expression of Congressional intent, the ITC itself
`
`has recognized that the Board is the “lead agency in assessing the patentability, or
`
`validity, of proposed or issued claims.” Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133, Comm’n Op. at 37 (Sept. 8, 2020);
`
`see Paper 13 at 9-10. Similarly, other Board panels have routinely recognized that
`
`the ITC cannot usurp the role of the Board with respect to validity issues. Nichia,
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`Paper 21 at 27 (stating that because the ITC “does not have the authority to
`
`invalidate a patent, … ITC decisions do not preempt issues addressed in an inter
`
`partes review proceeding”); 3Shape A/S v. Align Tech., Inc.,. IPR2020-00223,
`
`Paper 12 at 33-34 (PTAB May 26, 2020) (“3Shape”) (same); Intel Corp. v. Tela
`
`Innovations, Inc., IPR2019-01636, Paper 16 at (PTAB March 31, 2020) (“Intel”);5
`
`see also Paper 13 at 10-11.
`
`
`
`Respectfully, the Board’s decision in this IPR to deny institution because of
`
`the ongoing ITC investigation fails to adequately address the lack of preclusive
`
`effect the ITC’s validity findings will have with respect to the challenged Novartis
`
`631 patent. While the Board acknowledged Regeneron’s argument (Paper 15 at
`
`23), it declined to give it meaningful weight because “Fintiv states that ‘as a
`
`practical matter, it is difficult to maintain a district court proceeding on patent
`
`claims determined to be invalid at the ITC.’” Id. (quoting Fintiv at 9). Neither the
`
`present Board panel nor the Fintiv panel, however, provided any explanation for
`
`this view. To the contrary, as Regeneron explained, it is not uncommon for patent
`
`owners to press forward with district court cases even following ITC invalidity
`
`
`5
`The Board panels in Nichia, 3Shape, and Intel rejected the patent owners’
`
`arguments that the existence of a parallel ITC investigation warranted discretionary
`
`denials under § 314(a).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`rulings, and indeed Novartis has shown an intent to do so here by filing a district
`
`court proceeding that is stayed pending the ITC outcome. Paper 10-11.6
`
`
`
`The problem with the Board deferring the invalidity analysis to the ITC,
`
`whose invalidity findings have no preclusive effect, is vividly demonstrated by the
`
`proceedings before the district court in Hyosung TNS, Inc. v. Diebold Nixdorf. See
`
`Paper 13 at 11. There, the district court allowed a patent infringement case to
`
`proceed even after the ITC found the patent in suit invalid and the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed the ITC’s invalidity ruling. The district court nonetheless denied a motion
`
`for invalidity based on the same arguments that were before the ITC and Federal
`
`Circuit and ordered the case to proceed, stating that: “there may be evidence not
`
`presented on the ITC record considered by the Federal Circuit that could merit a …
`
`different conclusion regarding … validity.” Case No. 3:16-CV-0364-N, 2019 WL
`
`6684138, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2019).
`
`
`
`The prejudicial, costly, and inefficient nature of this type of outcome is
`
`clear—even if the patent owner fails to sustain its patent at the ITC, it is entitled to
`
`a second bite of the apple in district court. Conversely, the accused infringer is
`
`
`6
`As noted, Patent Owner has asserted the 631 patent against Petitioner in a
`
`case pending in the Northern District of New York (“the NDNY Patent
`
`Litigation”). Paper 15 at 3.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`required to prove invalidity not just once in the ITC, but twice (in the ITC and in
`
`district court). As the Board noted, that is what Regeneron now faces, because
`
`Patent Owner here has confirmed that it plans to proceed in district court after the
`
`ITC investigation ends. See Paper 15 at 12 (“Patent Owner notes the NDNY Patent
`
`Litigation has been stayed, but will proceed after the ITC Investigation is
`
`complete.”). This type of costly serial litigation could not occur if the Board was
`
`the agency that found the patent invalid, and is precisely what Congress intended
`
`for the AIA to prevent. See pp. 4-8, supra.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, application of the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny
`
`trials under § 314(a) based on parallel ITC proceedings is contrary to
`
`Congressional intent. Accordingly, the Fintiv factors should not be relied on to
`
`justify denying trial in favor of ITC litigation.
`
`B.
`
`The Board’s Analysis of Certain Fintiv Factors Was Erroneous
`and Should Not Have Supported Denying Institution
`At the threshold level, the problems with applying the Fintiv factors based
`
`
`
`on parallel ITC proceedings are explained above. The Board followed those factors
`
`in denying institution, which was clear error given the facts here.7
`
`
`7
`As explained in Section III.A, application of the Fintiv factors goes against
`
`Congressional intent when the parallel proceeding is at the ITC. For that reason
`
`alone, Regeneron’s request for rehearing should be granted. Additionally, the
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`Fintiv Factors 1, 2, 5, and 6
`1.
`Congress did not intend the Board to defer to the ITC determinations of
`
`
`
`patent validity. The Board’s Fintiv analysis did not give sufficient weight to
`
`Congressional intent, and also did not meaningfully address the lack of preclusive
`
`effect of ITC invalidity holdings and the risk of further duplicative litigation in
`
`district court. Regeneron’s arguments on these points are set forth in Section III.A
`
`above. See also Paper 13 at 9-11, 14-15.
`
`
`
`In addition, in its analysis of factor 6, the Board pointed to the number of
`
`parallel actions – specifically, the ITC investigation and the two district court cases
`
`(the NDNY Patent Litigation and the Southern District of New York antitrust case
`
`(“SDNY Case”)) – as justification for exercising its discretion to deny institution.
`
`Paper 15 at 23 (“[I]nstituting review in this proceeding will do little to resolve the
`
`disputes between the parties and achieve efficient resolution. The outcome of the
`
`ITC Investigation will be known months before we could reach a final
`
`determination. Petitioner also chose to pursue complex antitrust claims that
`
`
`analysis in this Section III.B addresses certain findings that the Board made under
`
`the individual Fintiv factors. As there is significant overlap between the factors
`
`(see Paper 15 at 10-11, listing the factors), the analysis applies across multiple of
`
`the factors and Regeneron has grouped the factors together for this reason.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`implicate many of the same issues before us. Our final determination, however,
`
`would be only one small piece of that complex puzzle.”).
`
`
`
`This rationale does not withstand scrutiny in light of the facts. To the
`
`contrary, were the Board to institute IPR and find the challenged claims invalid,
`
`the Board’s holding (which would be subject to preclusive effect under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`318) would eliminate the NDNY Patent Litigation and end the ITC investigation.
`
`With respect to the NDNY Patent Litigation, Regeneron challenged in its petition
`
`every claim of the 631 patent (see Paper 15 at 2; Paper 13 at 13); accordingly, if
`
`those claims were found invalid by the Board (and subject to review by the Federal
`
`Circuit), Patent Owner would be foreclosed from asserting the 631 patent again.
`
`Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Stueben Foods, Inc., 884 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(“Collateral estoppel protects a party from having to litigate issues that have been
`
`fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-
`
`opponent.”). With respect to the ITC investigation, a finding of invalidity by the
`
`Board would likewise have collateral estoppel effect, and, importantly, would be
`
`the basis for rescission of any adverse remedial orders the ITC may enter. See, e.g.,
`
`Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Comm’n Op. at 35 (“The Commission may issue an
`
`exclusion order in a patent-based investigation only if it finds that the accused
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`articles ‘infringe a valid and enforceable United States patent.”) (citing 19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337(a)(1)(B)(i), (d)(1)) (emphasis in original).8
`
`
`
`With respect to the SDNY Case, Regeneron filed that case seeking redress
`
`for antitrust violations by Novartis and a third party. The SDNY case raises, among
`
`other things, inequitable conduct as to the 631 patent and does not seek an
`
`adjudication on patent validity. Paper 15 at 4; Ex. 2057. Unenforceability and
`
`invalidity are separate legal defenses. Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 759
`
`F.2d 1572, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The SDNY court will not be tasked with
`
`determining whether the 631 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, as the Board would do here. Accordingly, there will not be risk of duplicative
`
`or inconsistent decisions between the Board and the Court in the SDNY Case.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Board’s concerns that its final decision would be
`
`“only one small piece” of the bigger dispute between the parties is unfounded. Just
`
`as Congress intended, the Board’s analysis would instead serve as a less-expensive
`
`alternative to courtroom litigation – the NDNY Patent Litigation and further
`
`
`8
`The ITC explained that rescinding or modifying its remedial orders based on
`
`Board invalidity rulings is consistent with its practice of doing so when a district
`
`court has found the patent in question invalid. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Comm’n
`
`Op. at 37, fn. 17.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`proceedings in the ITC investigation. See, e.g., Intel, Paper 16 at 23-24 (“[W]e do
`
`not find the ITC Proceeding weighs in favor of denying institution, because it will
`
`not resolve the unpatentability issues raised in this Petition or the issues in dispute
`
`between the parties in the NDCA.”); Renesas Elecs. Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.,
`
`IPR2019-01040, Paper 9 at 8 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) (noting that although the ITC
`
`proceeding may resolve the issues between the parties at the ITC, even if the ITC
`
`finds the asserted claims invalid, the patent owner may continue to assert the
`
`claims at issue in the district court once the ITC action concludes); Nichia, Paper
`
`21 at 27-28 (instituting IPR and rejecting § 314(a) argument, holding that the
`
`existence of pending district court actions supports institution “because other
`
`courts may still need to address patentability once stays are lifted…. [W]e decline
`
`to deny institution … because the ongoing district court proceedings, including
`
`those currently stayed, may benefit from our patentability determination and
`
`override any perceived judicial inefficiency.”).
`
`Fintiv Factors 3 and 4
`2.
`The Board acknowledged that Regeneron stipulated (see Paper 13 at 12-13)
`
`
`
`not to pursue at the ITC the invalidity grounds identified in the Petition should the
`
`Board institute trial. The Board characterized the stipulation as a “narrow” one that
`
`“does not alleviate concerns of duplication given the Petitioner’s ability to rely on
`
`substantially the same prior art by slightly varying the combinations.” Paper 15 at
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`20-21. The stipulation, however, ensures that the ITC and the Board will not make
`
`duplicative and potentially inconsistent findings regarding the grounds in the
`
`Petition. In particular, had the Board instituted trial, it would have been the sole
`
`agency to address the obviousness of the claims based on Sigg and Boulange,
`
`which is the only combination asserted in the Petition. See Pet. at 22-23 (asserting
`
`five grounds, all of which require the combination of Sigg and Boulange).
`
`
`
`Thus, the ITC would not consider “the same arguments” as the Board asserts
`
`(Paper 15 at 21) – the ITC would not consider the argument that the challenged
`
`claims were invalid based on Sigg and Boulange, and there would have been no
`
`risk of inconsistent positions between the ITC and the Board as to those arguments.
`
`
`
`Finally, the Board’s conclusion that the stipulation did not apply to the
`
`NDNY Patent Litigation and therefore “the same grounds before us could later be
`
`asserted by Petitioner” there is incorrect. Paper 15 at 22. Had the Board instituted
`
`trial, the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would prevent Regeneron
`
`asserting in district court that the 631 patent claims are “invalid on any ground that
`
`the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons expressed herein, Regeneron respectfully requests that the
`
`Board or POP consider this request for rehearing, reconsider its institution
`
`decision, and institute inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 12, 2021
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01317
`U.S. Patent No. 9,220,631
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth S. Weiswasser/
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser (Reg. No. 55,721)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Natalie Kennedy (Reg. No. 68,511
`Andrew Gesior (Reg. No. 76,588)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`T: 212-310-8000
`F: 212-310-8007
`E: REGN.IPR.Service@weil.com
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg. No. 36,801)
`Christopher Pepe (Reg. No. 73,851)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`T: 202-682-7000
`F: 202-857-0940
`E: REGN.IPR.Service@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 12, 2021, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d) was served via electronic mail upon the following:
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Linnea Cipriano
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`eholland@goodwinlaw.com
`lcipriano@goodwinlaw.com
`
`William G. James
` GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`1900 N Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`wjames@goodwinlaw.com
`
`Joshua Weinger
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston MA 02210-1980
`jweinger@goodwinlaw.com
`
`
`
`/Lauren McDuffie/
`Lauren McDuffie
`IP Paralegal
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`202-682-7000
`lauren.mcduffie@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
