`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 10
` Entered: April 8, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRANSGENE and BIOINVENT INTERNATIONAL AB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`REPLIMUNE LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`_______________
`
`Before ERIC W. HAWTHORNE, Supervisory Trial Paralegal
`
`ERRATUM
`
`The Conduct of the Proceeding order Granting-In-Part Petitioner’s Request to
`File a Pre-Institution Reply 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 (Order), issued on April 6, 2022, omitted
`electronic service to Patent Owner’s counsel at page 3. A corrected copy is attached
`to this erratum. All deadlines from the April 6, 2022, Order remain unchanged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`TRANSGENE and BIOINVENT INTERNATIONAL AB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`REPLIMUNE LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`
`Before CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, ROBERT A. POLLOCK, and
`JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`Granting-In-Part Petitioner’s Request to File a Pre-Institution Reply
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`On April 6, 2022, we held a conference call with counsel for the
`parties and the judges on this panel participating. A transcript of the call
`will be made of record in this proceeding. The purpose of the call was to
`discuss Petitioner’s request to file a pre-institution Reply to address certain
`arguments raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. In particular,
`Petitioner seeks a Reply to address: the legal effect of Patent Owner’s
`statutory disclaimer of challenged claims 1–8, 10–12, and 14–26, Patent
`Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), Patent
`Owner’s arguments related to burdens and certain evidentiary showings
`concerning Petitioner’s reliance on “common knowledge,” and Petitioner’s
`request for a refund for additional claim fees paid for the disclaimed claims.
`As explained during the conference call, the standard for authorizing a
`pre-institution reply is good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.208(c). Having
`considered the parties’ respective positions, we determine that good cause
`exists for Petitioner to file a Reply limited to the § 325(d) issue. At this
`point, we do not authorize further briefing on the other issues requested by
`Petitioner.
`Accordingly, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a pre-institution Reply
`limited to addressing the § 325(d) argument raised in Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Reply; such a Reply shall be limited to 5 pages and filed no later
`than April 15, 2022; no further evidence is authorized to be submitted with
`Petitioner’s Reply.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00014
`Patent 10,947,513 B2
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Erin Dunston
`Travis Bliss
`Aaron Pereira
`Stephany Small
`PANITCH SCWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP
`edunston@panitchlaw.com
`tbliss@panitchlaw.com
`ssmall@panitchlaw.com
`apereira@panitchlaw.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Dion Bregman
`Alexander Stein
`Christopher Betti
`Kelly Plummer
`Maria Doukas
`Guylaine Hache
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`alexander.stein@morganlewis.com
`christopher.betti@morganlewis.com
`kelly.plummer@morganlewis.com
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`guylaine.hache@morganlewis.com
`
`3
`
`
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
