January 21, 2022

Volume XII, Number 21


January 20, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 19, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 18, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc Granting Leave to File Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response

Takeaway: Additional briefing may be allowed to address alleged factual inaccuracies in a patent owner’s preliminary response.

In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request to file a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to address an alleged time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response, asserted that Petitioner was barred under § 315(b) because it was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’216 patent more than one year before the petition was filed.  In particular, Patent Owner alleged that Petitioner was “served” with a relevant complaint on January 9, 2013 “when Patent Owner served a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Ex. 2004) that included, as an exhibit, a copy of the second amended complaint, which Patent Owner filed with the district court on January 17, 2013.”

Petitioner requested additional briefing, arguing that Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response contained factual inaccuracies relevant to the time bar.

The Board granted Petitioner’s request, authorizing the filing of a five page reply to address when Petitioner was “served with a complaint” alleging infringement of the ’216 patent. The Board also authorized Patent Owner to file a five page sur-reply addressing issues raised in Petitioner’s reply.

The Board directed the parties’ attention to Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 (PTAB Jan. 30, 2013), regarding the meaning of “served” in the context of § 315(b).  In addition, the Board instructed the parties to submit evidence, and not testimony, with their briefs.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., IPR2014-00360 
Paper 9: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding 
Dated: May 8, 2014 
Patent 8,329,216 B2
Before: Toni R. Scheiner, Francisco C. Prats, and Jacqueline Wright Bonilla 
Written by: Bonilla
Related Proceeding: IPR2014-00361

© 2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 140

About this Author

The Intellectual Property Litigation Practice at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP recognizes that a successful IP enforcement strategy can make an important contribution to a company's bottom line. Our attorneys help a wide variety of clients protect what is theirs and police the marketplace against infringements and unfair competitive practices.

Our attorneys have litigated infringement suits across a broad range of industries and technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, dental methods, computer software, automobile designs,...