`
`Paper: 20
`Entered: May 7, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`KVK-TECH, INC.
`FLAT LINE CAPITAL, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SILVERGATE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2017-00039
`Patent 9,463,183
`
`____________
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`and MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND,
`
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`JUDGMENT AND FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2017-00039
`Patent 9,463,183
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1–13 (all claims) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,463,183 on three grounds: (1) lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112; (2) lack of written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112; and (3)
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Paper 1, 4. In our institution decision,
`
`we ordered review of all challenged claims but limited the proceeding to the
`
`ground based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Paper 8, 21. On
`
`May 1, 2018, we modified our institution decision “to include review of all
`
`challenged claims and all grounds presented in the Petition.” Paper 17, 3.
`
`On May 3, 2018, with our prior authorization, the parties filed a Joint
`
`Motion to Limit the Petition. Paper 18. Concurrently herewith, we issue an
`
`order granting the parties’ Joint Motion to Limit the Petition to remove the
`
`two grounds of unpatentability based on 35 U.S.C. § 112, leaving the
`
`challenge to claims 1–13 based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 as the sole ground
`
`remaining in dispute.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A party may request entry of adverse judgment against itself at any
`
`time during a proceeding. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b). On April 16, 2018, the
`
`parties filed a Joint Motion for Adverse Judgment against Petitioner.
`
`Paper 16 (“Joint Motion”). On May 3, 2018, the parties indicated that they
`
`“jointly continue to consent to entry of adverse judgment against” Petitioner
`
`as advanced in the Joint Motion. Paper 18, 1. The parties direct us to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4), which we construe as an admission that Petitioner
`
`has abandoned the contest. Paper 16, 1; Paper 18, 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2017-00039
`Patent 9,463,183
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Under these circumstances, entry of judgment adverse to Petitioner is
`
`appropriate, and thus, granted.
`
`
`
`It is
`
`
`
`ORDERED that adverse judgment is entered against Petitioner under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4); and
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that this constitutes a final written decision
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Zachary Silbersher
`Gaston Kroub
`Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC
`zsilbersher@kskiplaw.com
`gkroub@kskiplaw.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jeffrey Guise
`Richard Torczon
`Wendy Devine
`Clark Lin
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC
`jguise@wsgr.com
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`clin@wsgr.com
`
`3
`
`