`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUPERNUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,206,740
`_____________________
`
`IPR2013-00368
`
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN DOLL
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`I. My Background and Qualifications ................................................................ 2
`II. Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 8
`III. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 13
`IV.
`Incorporation by reference ............................................................................ 14
`V. The Ashley '932 publication provides sufficient details for a POSA to
`unambiguously identify the Ashley '854 application. .................................. 15
` The Ashley '854 application was available to the public prior to the April 7,
`2003 asserted priority date for the ‘740 patent. ............................................ 21
` A person of ordinary skill in the art, having read the incorporation by
`for the ‘740 patent ......................................................................................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`
`
`reference statement in the Ashley '932 publication, could have located the
`Ashley '854 application long before the April 7, 2003 asserted priority date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`I, John Doll, hereby declare as follows.
`
`Introduction
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and otherwise competent to make
`1.
`
`this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of AMNEAL
`
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC for the above-captioned inter partes review (IPR). I am
`
`being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard
`
`consulting rate, which is $750 per hour. I understand that the petition for inter
`
`partes review involves U.S. Patent No. 8,206,740 ("the '740 patent"), AMNEAL
`
`1001, which resulted from U.S. Application No. 12/155,676 ("the
`
`'676
`
`application"), filed on June 6, 2008. The '740 patent names Rong-Kun Chang,
`
`Arash Rauofinia and Niraj Shah as inventors. The '740 patent issued on June 26,
`
`2012, from the '676 application. I understand that, according to the USPTO
`
`records, the '740 patent is currently assigned to Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
`
`("the patentee").
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the '740 patent and
`
`considered each of the documents cited herein, in light of general knowledge in the
`
`art. In formulating my opinions, I have relied upon my experience, education and
`
`knowledge in the relevant art of drug development and formulation. In
`
`formulating my opinions, I have also considered the knowledge and skills of a
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSA") (i.e., a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`field of drug delivery and formulation).
`
` My Background and Qualifications
`II.
`As described in more detail below, I had a 35-year career at the
`4.
`
`USPTO and served in various capacities ranging from Patent Examiner to
`
`Commissioner for Patents to Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
`
`Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I
`
`served as an Assistant and Primary Patent Examiner at the USPTO for nine years,
`
`during which time I was responsible for examining patent applications some of
`
`which had compound claims having pharmaceutical utilities, composition claims,
`
`and pharmaceutical methods of use claims. I later became the Director of
`
`Technology Center 1600, which is responsible for examining applications covering
`
`Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry (including pharmaceuticals). This is the
`
`same Technology Center 1600 that examined the ‘740 patent. Having served as a
`
`patent examiner and as the Director of Technology Center 1600, I am experienced
`
`in determining what a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in the field of drug
`
`delivery and formulation would have understood, known or would have done in
`
`view of the prior art, and I routinely made such factual determinations on behalf of
`
`the USPTO. Likewise, I am experienced in reviewing references and determining a
`
`reference’s prior art date from the facts available.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`5. My experience in having served as a fact finder regarding prior art is
`
`consistent with Federal Circuit decisions and The Manual of Patent Examining
`
`Procedure (MPEP). For instance, the Federal Circuit has stated that examiners and
`
`administrative patent judges on the Board are “person[s] of scientific competence
`
`in the fields in which they work” and that their findings are “informed by their
`
`scientific knowledge, as to the meaning of prior art references to persons of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.” In re Berg, 320 F.3d 1310, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Similarly, MPEP 2141(II) 8th edition, rev. 9 (2012) (Ex1099) recognizes Office
`
`Personnel as Fact finders [Ex1099, 2100-113
`
`to 2100-115.] and MPEP
`
`2141(II)(C), (2012) explains that an examiner “may rely on their own technical
`
`expertise to describe the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary sill in the
`
`art." [Ex1099, 2100-114.] Likewise, MPEP 2141.03(III) 8th edition, rev. 9 (2012)
`
`(Ex1100) states that “[t]he examiner must ascertain what would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made” citing
`
`Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 218 USPQ 865 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1983), cert denied, 464 U.S. 1043 (1984). [Ex1100, 2100-123.]
`
`6. My educational and professional background is detailed in my
`
`curriculum vitae. [Ex1050] I received a B.S. in Chemistry and Physics from
`
`Bowling Green State University in 1971. I received a M.S. in Physical Chemistry
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`from The Pennsylvania State University in 1974. And I am registered to practice
`
`before the USPTO (Registration No. 65,756).
`
`7.
`
`From September 1974 to August 1992, I served in various examining
`
`capacities at the USPTO: Assistant and Primary Patent Examiner, Supervisory
`
`Patent Examiner, and Quality Assurance Specialist. I examined, supervised and
`
`reviewed the examination of patent applications encompassing pharmaceuticals,
`
`herbicides, pesticides, dyestuffs, inorganic chemistry, hydrometallurgy, zeolite
`
`catalysts, buckministerfullerenes, proteins, and peptides. The applications that I
`
`examined, and for which I supervised examination, included applications having
`
`compound claims, composition claims, and methods of use claims encompassing
`
`pharmaceuticals.
`
`8.
`
`From August 1992 to January 2005, I served as a Group Director in
`
`Groups 1100, 2900 and 1800 and in Technology Center 1600. During this time, I
`
`was responsible for all patent examination issues in the chemistry, chemical
`
`engineering, design, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology art areas. I was the
`
`Director of Group 1100 (which was responsible for the patent examinations of
`
`chemistry applications) and 2900 (which was responsible for the patent
`
`examinations of design applications) from August 1992 to March 1995. In March
`
`1995, I became Director of Group 1800, which was responsible for the patent
`
`examinations of biotechnology applications. In 1998, Group 1800 (biotechnology),
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`Group 1200 (organic chemistry and pharmaceuticals), and part of Group 1500
`
`(polymers) combined to form Technology Center 1600, which was response for the
`
`patent examinations of biochemistry and organic chemistry applications. I was one
`
`of 3 Directors of Group 1600 until January 2005. Additionally, in 1995, I directed
`
`the development and implementation of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 Utility Guidelines,
`
`and in 1996, I directed the development and implementation of the 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, paragraph 1, Enablement Examiner Training Materials.
`
`9.
`
`From March 2004 to January 2005, I served as the Special Assistant
`
`to the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In this position,
`
`I provided technical, examination and legal advice on all patent-related issues.
`
`10. From January 2005 to August 2005, I served as the Deputy
`
`Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning. As the Deputy Commissioner
`
`for Patent Resources and Planning, I was responsible for the formulation and
`
`execution of the $1.3 billion budget as well as strategic planning for the Patent
`
`Office.
`
`11. From April 2005
`
`to August 2005, I served as
`
`the Acting
`
`Commissioner for Patents. I was appointed by the Under Secretary of Commerce
`
`for Intellectual Property and the Director of the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office to perform the duties of the Commissioner for Patents until the
`
`Secretary of Commerce appointed a new Commissioner for Patents.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`12. From August 2005 to October 2009, I served as the Commissioner for
`
`Patents. As the Commissioner for Patents, I was appointed by the Secretary of
`
`Commerce and served as the Chief Operating Officer for all aspects of patent
`
`related operations, planning and policy with the mission of properly applying the
`
`patent laws and regulations of the United States in the examination of patent
`
`applications. As the Commissioner, I oversaw a budget of $1.3 billion and a staff
`
`of over 7000 employees. I was responsible for the USPTO's strategic planning and
`
`execution, budget formulation and execution, information technology systems,
`
`staffing, employee development, labor management relations, customer outreach,
`
`congressional relations, public advisory committee relations, and patent policy
`
`formulation.
`
`13. From November 2008 to September 2009, I also served as the Deputy
`
`Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. In my role as the Deputy Under
`
`Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office, I assisted the Under Secretary in developing
`
`and promoting Administration positions on all Patent, Trademark and Copyright
`
`issues domestically and internationally. Additionally, I served as the Chief
`
`Operating Officer in planning, measuring and improving the mission performance
`
`and achievement of the USPTO. I was also responsible for maintaining and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`growing domestic and international leadership roles in intellectual property rights
`
`policy by strengthening Intellectual Property protection. I was responsible for
`
`providing customers with the highest levels of quality and service in all aspects of
`
`USPTO operations.
`
`14. From January 2009 to August 2009, I also served as the Acting Under
`
`Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office. As the Acting Under Secretary, I advised the
`
`President, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administration about all intellectual
`
`property matters. As Acting Director, I administered the laws of granting Patents
`
`and Trademarks, and was responsible for the day-to-day management of a $2.1
`
`billion agency and for over 10,000 employees. I developed and articulated
`
`administration positions on all Patent, Trademark and Copyright issues while
`
`promoting strong intellectual property policy globally, including strategies to
`
`thwart the theft of U.S. intellectual property around the world.
`
`15. From October 2009 to the present, I have worked as an expert witness
`
`and a consultant on U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) practice and
`
`procedure.
`
`16.
`
`I have received several honors in my career, including a Department
`
`of Commerce Bronze Medal for examination and supervisory accomplishments; a
`
`second Bronze Medal for the implementation of Patent Application Location and
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`Monitoring (PALM) system; a Department of Commerce Silver Medal for the
`
`development of automated examiner office action tools; the Vice Presidential
`
`Hammer Award for establishing the Biotechnology Customer Partnership; and a
`
`Department of Commerce Gold Medal for implementation of the Image File
`
`Wrapper system.
`
` Summary of Opinions
`III.
`I have been asked by Counsel for Amneal to consider and respond to
`17.
`
`the testimony of Supernus's declarant, Stephen Kunin [Ex2145]. In formulating
`
`my opinions, I have drawn upon my experience in examining and in supervising
`
`examination of patent applications in the drug development and formulation. And
`
`I have provided my opinions from the vantage point of an experienced fact finder
`
`with scientific competence and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in this art.
`
`18.
`
`In his declaration and at deposition, Mr. Kunin questioned the
`
`effectiveness of
`
`the
`
`incorporation-by-reference of
`
`the Ashley 60/281,854
`
`application into the Ashley WO 2002/080932publication. [Ex2145, ¶¶ 27-34.] He
`
`also raised questions regarding the public availability of the Ashley '854
`
`application. [Ex2145, ¶¶ 23-26.] I disagree with Mr. Kunin's conclusions.
`
`19. Mr. Kunin seeks to cast doubt on whether the Ashley '932 publication
`
`identified the Ashley '854 application with sufficient particularity to incorporate it
`
`by reference. Yet, Mr. Kunin stated on cross-examination that whether a document
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`is incorporated by reference is a question of law on which he offered no opinion.
`
`[See Ex1051, page 31, lines 12-17.] To the extent that Mr. Kunin purports to offer
`
`factual testimony relevant to this question of law from the vantage point of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art, I note that Mr. Kunin readily acknowledges that
`
`he is not a POSA in this art:
`
`Q Earlier you mentioned that you're not serving as a technical expert
`
`in this case, correct?
`
`A That's right. I -- if you look in my declaration in paragraph 6 on
`
`page 3 of the declaration, you'll see that my technical background is
`
`in electrical engineering, not pharmaceutical chemistry. I would
`
`not be a person of ordinary skill in the pharmaceutical chemistry
`
`technology.
`
`Q Is it -- would you agree that you're not a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art with respect to the patents challenged in these IPRs?
`
`A Yes, I think that's fair.
`
`[Ex1051, page 29, line 15 to page 30, line 3 (emphasis added).]
`
`20.
`
`I note that Mr. Kunin, with an electrical engineering background, has
`
`not examined patent applications from the vantage point of an experienced fact
`
`finder with scientific competence and knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`this art, which relates to drug development and formulation. [See Ex2145, Exhibit
`
`A.]
`
`21. During cross-examination, Mr. Kunin also stated that he did not read
`
`the declaration of Amneal's expert in this case, Dr. Van Buskirk. [Ex1051, page
`
`28, lines 6-12.] Therefore, not only is Mr. Kunin not a POSA, he cannot testify
`
`from the perspective of a POSA. I have read the portions of Dr. Van Buskirk's
`
`deposition and declarations that relate to his professional and educational
`
`background and his opinions on incorporation by reference. [Ex1022, ¶¶ 11-20,
`
`40-41 and footnote 3; Ex1066, ¶¶ 14, 106-108; Ex2015, pages 60-61, 63, 68-73,
`
`and 85.]
`
`22. And though Mr. Kunin questions whether the incorporation by
`
`reference was effective, the Ashley '932 publication’s incorporation statement
`
`refers to the incorporated application with sufficient particularity such that a POSA
`
`could identify the Ashley '854 application without ambiguity. Even Mr. Kunin
`
`identified only a single application with the April 5, 2001 filing date- the Ashley
`
`'854 application when conducting a search using the identifying information
`
`provided in the Ashley '932 publication’s incorporation statement. [See Ex1051,
`
`page 64, line 4- page 66, line 9; Ex2145, Exhibit N.] Thus, Mr. Kunin and
`
`Supernus do not establish that a POSA would have been confused as to which
`
`application was incorporated into the Ashley '932 publication.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`23. Mr. Kunin’s declaration also contains a lengthy discussion regarding
`
`the USPTO’s procedures and processing times for retrieving and providing a copy
`
`of an abandoned patent application to a member of the public. And in his
`
`declaration and deposition testimony, Mr. Kunin implies that an abandoned patent
`
`application becomes prior art only once a member of the public actually obtains a
`
`copy of the application or actually inspects the application once the USPTO has
`
`retrieved it. [See Ex1051, page 36, line 19-page 37, line 1; EX2145, ¶ 74.] But if
`
`the USPTO’s retrieval procedures and delivery process impacted when an
`
`abandoned application becomes prior art, two applications filed on the same day
`
`could have different prior art dates depending on variables such as (i) when a
`
`member of the public first requested access to the abandoned application, (ii) how
`
`efficiently the PTO processed the request for access, (iii) whether the application
`
`was stored electronically or only in hard copy, (iv) in which PTO warehouse a
`
`paper copy of the application was stored, and (iv) how long it takes the U.S. Postal
`
`Service to deliver a copy of the application to the party requesting the application,
`
`which of course would depend on the delivery address of the requesting party [See
`
`Ex2145, ¶ 84 and Exhibit P, stating that delivery times may range from 2-3 days.]
`
`If such variables were considered in determining when an abandoned patent
`
`application becomes prior art, inconsistent results would be obtained, and it would
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`virtually be impossible for the public to determine the effective date of many
`
`references.
`
`24.
`
`In formulating my opinions, I have considered
`
`the following
`
`documents:
`
`Paper # or
`Exhibit #
`
`Description
`
`Paper 2
`
`Paper 1
`
`Paper 2
`
`Paper 8
`
`Paper 11
`
`Paper 8
`
`Paper 40
`Paper 41
`Paper 39
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1022
`
`Amneal's petition for inter partes review of US Patent No.
`8,206,740;
`Amneal's petition for inter partes review of US Patent No.
`8,394,405
`Amneal's petition for inter partes review of US Patent No.
`8,394,406
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Decision to Institute, Case
`IPR2013-00368 ;
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Decision to Institute, Case
`IPR2013-00371;
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board, Decision to Institute, Case
`IPR2013-00372;
`Patent Owner Response, Case IPR2013-00368;
`Patent Owner Response, Case IPR2013-00371;
`Patent Owner Response, Case IPR2013-00372
`Chang, U.S. Pat. No. 8,206,740, "Once Daily
`Formulations of Tetracyclines" (filed June 6, 2008; issued
`June 26, 2012) ("the '740 patent")
`Ashley, WO 2002/080932, “Method of Treating Acne”
`(filed April 5, 2002; published October 17, 2002) ("the
`Ashley '932 publication")
`Ashley, U.S. Prov. Appl. No. 60/281,854 " Controlled
`Delivery of Tetracycline and Tetracycline Derivatives"
`(filed April 5, 2001) ("the Ashley '854 application")
`Ashley, WO 02/083106, "Controlled Delivery of
`Tetracycline Compounds and Tetracycline Derivatives"
`(filed April 5, 2002; published October 24, 2002) ("the
`'106 publication")
`Declaration of Glenn A. Van Buskirk, Ph.D. (¶¶ 11-20,
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1031
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1051
`
`1058
`
`1066
`
`1090
`1099
`1100
`1101
`1102
`1103
`1104
`2015
`
`2145
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`40-41 and footnote 3)
`Ashley, U.S. Prov. Appl. No. 60/281,916, "Methods of
`Treating Acne" (filed April 5, 2001) ("the '916 application)
`Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University,
`212 F. 3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
`Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`Transcript of Deposition of Stephan G. Kunin, Esq., Case
`IPR2013-00368; IPR2013-00371; and IPR2013-00372,
`April 18, 2014
`Kyocera Wireless Corporation v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)
`Second Declaration of Glenn A. Van Buskirk, Ph.D. (¶¶
`14 and 106-108)
`In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221 (C.C.PA. 1981)
`MPEP 2141(II), 8th edition, rev. 9 (2012)
`MPEP 2141.03 (III) 8th edition, rev. 9 (2012)
`MPEP 901.02, 8th edition (2001)
`MPEP 2126, 8th edition (2001)
`MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(A)(1), 8th edition (2001)
`Espacenet Keyword Search Results
`Transcript of Deposition of Glenn A. Van Buskirk, Ph.D.,
`Case IPR2013-00368; IPR2013-00371; and IPR2013-
`00372, February 12, 2014 (pages 60-61, 63, 68-73, and 85)
`Declaration of Stephen G. Kunin, Esq. and Appendices A-
`P.
`
` Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`IV.
`I understand that a POSA is a hypothetical person who is presumed to
`25.
`
`be aware of all pertinent art, thinks along conventional wisdom in the art, and is a
`
`person of ordinary creativity. A POSA would have had education and experience
`
`in drug delivery and formulation as of 2003. The education and experience levels
`
`may vary between persons of ordinary skill, with some persons holding a
`
`Bachelor's degree with many years of experience and others holding higher degrees
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`but having less work experience. A POSA would have knowledge and skill
`
`relating to the use, function, and formulation of pharmaceutical excipients;
`
`knowledge and training regarding the equipment, processes and techniques used to
`
`analyze and test formulation materials; and an understanding of pharmacokinetic
`
`principles and how they relate to drug development. Such a person would have
`
`specific experience with modified release drug systems.
`
`26. A POSA typically would work as part of a multi-disciplinary team
`
`and draw upon not only his or her own skills, but also take advantage of certain
`
`specialized skills of others in the team, to solve a given problem. For example, a
`
`clinician may be part of the team. I understand that when considering the prior art,
`
`a POSA can rely on disclosures in the prior art as well as recourse to logic,
`
`judgment, and common sense. I understand that a POSA does not necessarily
`
`require explicit explication in any reference to understand the teachings therein.
`
`V.
`
`
`Incorporation by reference
`I understand that whether one document is incorporated by reference
`27.
`
`into another document is a question of law. [See Advanced Display Systems, Inc.
`
`v. Kent State University, 212 F. 3d 1272, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Ex1033).] I also
`
`note that Mr. Kunin agrees that the question of whether a document is properly
`
`incorporated by reference is a question of law. In his deposition, when asked
`
`whether the Ashley '932 publication's incorporation by reference of the Ashley
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`'854 application was effective, Mr. Kunin stated that "I think that's a question of
`
`law, and that's really for the PTAB to decide, not me." [See Ex1051, page 31, lines
`
`15-17.]
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the material to be incorporated by reference must be
`
`described in the host document with "detailed particularity" as viewed from the
`
`vantage point of a person of ordinary skill. [See Advanced Display Systems, 212 F.
`
`3d at 1282-83 (Ex1033) ("the standard of one reasonably skilled in the art should
`
`be used to determine whether the host document describes the material to be
`
`incorporated by reference with sufficient particularity."); see also Hollmer v.
`
`Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Ex1034).]
`
` The Ashley '932 publication provides sufficient details for a POSA to
`VI.
`unambiguously identify the Ashley '854 application.
`I agree with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the facts
`29.
`
`surrounding the incorporation by reference support the conclusion that the "Ashley
`
`'932 incorporates by reference Ashley '854 in its entirety." [Decision on Institution
`
`of Inter Partes Review, IPR2013-00368, at 7 (Paper 8, December 17, 2013).] A
`
`POSA who considered the Ashley '932 publication’s incorporation statement
`
`would have understood that it described the incorporated application with such
`
`detailed particularity that it unambiguously referred to the Ashley '854 application.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`30. Though the Ashley '932 publication does not refer to the Ashley '854
`
`application by number, it uses the following language, which is sufficient for a
`
`POSA to identify the Ashley '854 application:
`
`Further description of methods of delivering tetracycline compounds
`by sustained release can be found in the patent application,
`"Controlled Delivery
`of Tetracycline
`and Tetracycline
`Derivatives," filed on April 5, 2001 and assigned to CollaGenex
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Newtown Pennsylvania. The aforementioned
`application is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
`[Ex1002, page 15, lines 26-30 (emphasis added).]
`the Ashley
`'932 publication states
`31. Thus,
`
`that
`
`the referenced
`
`application is incorporated by reference in its entirety, and it references the
`
`application by (1) title, (2) application filing date, and (3) assignee. The title and
`
`application filing date provide sufficient information for a POSA to identify the
`
`Ashley '854 application without ambiguity, as the searching I conducted shows
`
`there is only a single application having this title and filing date. [Ex1104] Even
`
`Supernus's declarant, Mr. Kunin, identified only a single application having such a
`
`title and filing date. [See Ex1051, page 64, line 4- page 66, line 9; Exhibit 2145,
`
`Exhibit N.] Thus, a POSA would have found the Ashley '932 publication to be
`
`unambiguous in its incorporation of the Ashley '854 application by reference.
`
`Accordingly, I agree with the PTAB's previous determination that "there is no
`
`evidence of record to suggest that the identification was ambiguous." [Decision on
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review, IPR2013-00368, fn 1 (Paper 8, December 17,
`
`2013)]
`
`32. Supernus asserts that "a person reading Ashley '932 would have
`
`reasonably assumed that this 'patent application' was U.S. Provisional No.
`
`60/281,916 [“the ‘916 application”], also filed on April 5, 2001, which is shown on
`
`the front of Ashley '932 under "Priority Data." [Patent Owner Response, page 54
`
`(Paper 40, March 10, 2014; emphasis omitted).] I disagree, and I note that
`
`Supernus's argument is not substantiated by any testimony from a POSA or from
`
`the vantage point of an experienced fact finder with scientific competence and
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in this art, which relates to drug
`
`development and formulation.
`
`33. For several reasons, a POSA would have believed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`incorporation statement in the Ashley '932 publication referred to the Ashley '854
`
`application, not the '916 provisional application (Ex1031).
`
`34. First, a keyword search using the assignee's name and terms from the
`
`application title provided in the Ashley '932 publication’s incorporation-by-
`
`reference statement leads to only a single application having the April 5, 2001
`
`filing date identified in the Ashley '932 publication. This single application is the
`
`Ashley '854 application. I conducted a search of the European Patent Office’s
`
`(EPO’s) Espacenet database using the key words "Controlled Delivery of
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`Tetracycline and Tetracycline Derivatives" (searched in the title section) and
`
`"Collagenex" (searched in the applicant section). Quotation marks were not used
`
`around the keywords while searching. My search led to a single application having
`
`an April 5, 2001 filing date – the Ashley '854 application. My search results are
`
`consistent with Mr. Kunin’s similar search, as his search also led to single
`
`application filed on April 5, 2001 – the same Ashley '854 application. Mr. Kunin’s
`
`search results uniquely identify U.S. Appl. No. 60/281,854, having the title
`
`“Controlled Delivery of Tetracycline and Tetracycline Derivatives” and a filing
`
`date of April 5, 2001, just as described in the Ashley '932 publication. [Exhibit
`
`2145, Exhibit N, pages 000129-130.]
`
`35. Second, contrary to Supernus’s assertions, a POSA would not have
`
`concluded that the Ashley '932 application’s incorporation statement referred to the
`
`‘916 application. Even if a POSA were inclined to consider the possibility that the
`
`Ashley '932 publication’s incorporation statement referenced the ‘916 application,
`
`a POSA would have quickly dismissed such a notion. The Ashley '932
`
`publication’s incorporation statement refers to a patent application have a
`
`completely different title than the title of the '916 application. The incorporation
`
`statement identifies an application having the title "Controlled Delivery of
`
`Tetracycline and Tetracycline Derivatives," whereas the ‘916 application has the
`
`title "Methods of Treating Acne." [See Ex1031 page 1, line 1 and page 7, lines 28-
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`
`
`30; Ex1002, page 15, lines 26-30.] A POSA would not overlook such a stark
`
`dissimilarity in application titles. Nor would a POSA find any ambiguity given the
`
`completely dissimilar titles. In contrast, Mr. Kunin, who concedes he is not a
`
`POSA and lacks a background in this art, acknowledged on cross-examination that
`
`he did not even review the ‘916 application before signing his declaration. [See
`
`Ex1051, page 26, lines 7-9.] When asked if he had "read the priority document for
`
`the '932 application," Mr Kunin replied "I did not . . . ." [See Ex1051, page 26,
`
`lines 7-9.] So, Supernus's attorneys' arguments, regarding the '916 application, are
`
`completely unfounded.
`
`36. Third, a POSA also wouldn’t have believed that the Ashley '932
`
`publication’s incorporation statement referred to the '916 application because the
`
`‘916 application contains the identical incorporation-by-reference statement that’s
`
`included in the Ashley '932 publication. The ‘916 application states:
`
`Further description of methods of delivering tetracycline compounds
`
`by sustained release can be found in the patent application,
`
`"Controlled Delivery
`
`of Tetracycline
`
`and Tetracycline
`
`Derivatives," filed on April 5, 2001 and assigned to CollaGenex
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Newtown Pennsylvania. The aforementioned
`
`application is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
`
`[Ex1031, page 7, lines 27-31 (emphasis added).]
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 8,206,740
`Declaration of John Doll (Exhibit 1049)
`
`37. Given the identical incorporation statements in the Ashley '932
`
`publication and the ‘916 application, a POSA would have understood that the
`
`incorporated application was a different application that the '916 application. And
`
`it would have been redundant for the drafters of the Ashley '932 publication to
`
`claim the benefit of the ‘916 application in the first paragraph of the Ashley '932
`
`publication and then again incorporate the ‘916 application by reference on page
`
`15 of the specification.
`
`38. Fourth, the Ashley '932 publication claims priority benefit to the '916
`
`application and incorporates it by reference by iden
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
