Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/117643985/Exela-v-Kappos-defendants-brief-I-S-O-motion-for-reconsideration-on-statute-of-limitations
Timestamp: 2014-03-17 11:53:53
Document Index: 257803491

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2401', '§ 2401', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 371', '§371', '§ 371', '§1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

P. 1Exela v Kappos: defendants' brief I/S/O motion for reconsideration on statute of limitationsExela v Kappos: defendants' brief I/S/O motion for reconsideration on statute of limitationsRatings: (0)|Views: 216|Likes: 0Published by Charles A. Weiss	Brief in support of joint motion for reconsideration filed by defendant PTO (Kappos) and defendants-intervenors SCR Pharmatop and Cadence Pharmaceuticals	Brief in support of joint motion for reconsideration filed by defendant PTO (Kappos) and defendants-intervenors SCR Pharmatop and Cadence PharmaceuticalsMore info:Categories:Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: Charles A. Weiss on Dec 21, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee MoreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/117643985/Exela-v-Kappos-defendants-brief-I-S-O-motion-for-reconsideration-on-statute-of-limitations09/17/2013pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAAlexandria DivisionEXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC,
,))Plaintiffs,))v.)) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00469DAVID J. KAPPOS, Under Secretary of)(LO/JFA)Commerce for Intellectual Property and )Director of the United States Patent and )Trademark Office, ))UNITED STATES PATENT AND )TRADEMARK OFFICE,))Defendants,))and))SCR PHARMATOP and CADENCE)PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.))Intervenors-Defendants)__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ AND INTERVENORS’JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(F)(1), Defendants and Intervenors, through their undersignedcounsel, hereby respectfully submit the instant memorandum of law in support of their jointmotion for reconsideration in the above-captioned action.
The only issue that this Court must address in determining whether Plaintiffs ExelaPharma Sciences, LLC, Exela PharmaSci, Inc., and Exela Holdings, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) havebrought a timely cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) is the date onwhich the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) commenced. In denying
Case 1:12-cv-00469-LO-JFA Document 49 Filed 11/06/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID# 894
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, this Court held that the statute of limitations commenced on thedate of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury,
, when Intervenors Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and SCRPharmatop (“Intervenors”) sued them for patent infringement in 2011. However, respectfully,under the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in
Hire Order Ltd. v. Marianos
, -- F.3d --, 2012 WL4950863 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012), that decision was in error.In
Hire Order , the Fourth Circuit held that for purposes of APA actions, the six-yearstatute of limitations in § 2401(a) begins to run on the date of “final agency action” regardless of whether the plaintiff is injured by that action immediately or at a later date. And here, the only“final agency actions” that Plaintiffs challenge are a 2003 United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) decision reviving Intervenors’ PCT/FR01/01749 application (“2003 RevivalDecision”) and the 2000 amendment of 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b), which USPTO applied toIntervenors’ petition to revive that application. Because both of these “final agency actions”occurred more than six years ago, Plaintiffs’ action is untimely.Moreover, Plaintiffs’ petition to reconsider the 2003 Revival Decision did not restart thelimitations clock for purposes of this action. USPTO’s 2012 Letter, which responded toPlaintiffs’ petition by explaining that reconsideration of the 2003 Revival Decision would violateUSPTO procedural rules and regulations, as well as the Patent Act, cannot trigger the statute of limitations because it does not address the underlying issue in this case—
, whether the revivalof Intervenors’ PCT application pursuant to § 1.137(b) was consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 371(d).Plaintiffs can point to no final agency action taken by USPTO
against Plaintiffs
. Accordingly,this Court should grant Defendants’ and Intervenors’ joint motion for reconsideration anddismiss this case.2
Case 1:12-cv-00469-LO-JFA Document 49 Filed 11/06/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID# 895
FACTUAL BACKGROUNDI.T
’218
On June 6, 2000, SCR Pharmatop (“Pharmatop”), a French company, filed French patentapplication FR 00 07231 for a “new method for obtaining aqueous formulations with activeprinciples susceptible to oxidation and the aqueous solutions thus obtained.”
A.R. at A293.
A year later, on June 6, 2001, Pharmatop filed in the United States international patentapplication number PCT/FR01/01749 claiming priority to FR 00 07231.
at A205. UnitedStates patent application number 10/332,060 was the national stage application forPCT/FR01/01749 and ultimately issued in the United States as the ’218 patent on January 31,2006.
BANDONMENT AND
EVIVAL OF
PCT/FR01/01749
Pharmatop was required to fulfill the paperwork and fee requirements of 35 U.S.C. §371(c) by December 6, 2002—
, 30 months from the filing of FR 00 07231—to avoidabandonment of the PCT/FR01/01749 application.
35 U.S.C. § 371(d); 37 C.F.R. §1.495(b). Pharmatop failed, however, to make the required submissions by that date, and theapplication became abandoned.
A.R. at 219-20.Less than one month later, on or around January 2, 2003, Pharmatop filed a petitionpursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) seeking to revive PCT/FR01/01749 as to the United States.
In its submission, Pharmatop stated that the entire delay in meeting the national stagerequirements was “unintentional.”
On April 25, 2003, USPTO granted Pharmatop’s petition,finding that “all requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b) ha[d] been met.”
In order to avoid including an additional set of exhibits, to the extent possible, citationswill be to the Administrative Record (“A.R.”) filed on September 25, 2012.
Dkt. No. 34.3
Case 1:12-cv-00469-LO-JFA Document 49 Filed 11/06/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID# 896
More From This User Exela v Kappos, transcript of oral argument on defendants...
Memorandum and Order in Exela Pharm Sciences v Kappos (PT...
Allergan v. Watson: Federal Circuit appeal brief Charles A. Weiss
Ariad v Eli Lilly NYIPLA amicus brief Charles A. Weiss