Attorney Docket No. AKBM-33544
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AKER BIOMARINE AS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES AND BIORESSOURCES, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(1)(iii) and 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(2), Petitioner Aker
`
`BioMarine AS (“AKBM”) respectfully requests that the Board order Patent Owner
`
`Neptune Technologies and Bioressources, Inc. (“Neptune”) to produce:
`
`• August 9, 2010 email to Tina Sampalis regarding CaPre (RX-0456C);
`• Transcript of the deposition of Tina Sampalis, Volumes I–III;
`• Report on NKO (RX-0398C);
`• Transcript of the deposition of Pierre St-Jean;
`• Exhibit 4 to the St-Jean deposition; and
`• Exhibit 5 to the St-Jean deposition.1
`Far from “speculating” or “hoping,” AKBM knows these documents are within
`
`Neptune’s possession and contain information inconsistent with Neptune’s principal
`
`arguments attempting to distinguish the prior art Beaudoin I reference at the heart of
`
`this proceeding from the claims at issue. Neptune already produced these documents
`
`to AKBM and Enzymotec in a prior ITC Investigation, and its refusal to produce
`
`them here is a tacit acknowledgement that they hurt Neptune’s positions. The
`
`existence and damaging contents of the documents is not surprising, as the evidence
`
`already of record also shows Neptune’s arguments are wrong.
`
`
`1 Authorization for this motion was granted on August 26, 2014. See Order Conduct
`
`of Proceeding, Paper 79 (Sep. 3, 2014).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`Neptune refuses to re-produce the documents in this proceeding (and thereby
`
`permit AKBM to submit them to the Board without running afoul of the protective
`
`order in the ITC Investigation), because Neptune claims (i) the Protective Order in
`
`this proceeding is insufficient to protect their confidentiality, and (ii) the documents
`
`are not relevant. Neptune, however, drafted and moved for entry of the Protective
`
`Order knowing full well it could govern the very documents AKBM seeks. Neptune
`
`shouldn’t be allowed to use “deficiencies” of its own design, in an order to which it
`
`agreed, as a discovery escape hatch. Neptune’s claim that its bad documents are not
`
`relevant also should not shield those documents from discovery, particularly where
`
`Neptune has blocked AKBM from addressing Neptune’s relevance arguments by
`
`refusing to allow AKBM to discuss the documents’ contents with the Board.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`’351 Patent Claims
`All of the ’351 patent claims at issue in this proceeding2 are directed to a “krill
`
`extract comprising” a phospholipid molecule as follows:
`
`a phospholipid of the general formula (I)
`
`
`2 The claims at issue are Claims 1–6, 9, 12, 13, 19–29, 32, 35, 36, and 42–46 of U.S.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,278,351 (the “’351 patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`wherein R1 and R2, each together with the respective carboxyl groups to
`which each is attached, each independently represents a docosahexaenoic
`acid (DHA) or an eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) residue, and X is —
`CH2CH2NH3 , —CH2CH2N(CH3)3 , or
`
`
`and wherein the extract is suitable for human consumption.
`
`(the “Claimed Phospholipid(s)”). Ex. 1001 at claims 1, 24. The Claimed
`
`Phospholipid has an EPA and/or DHA attached at the sn-1 and sn-2 positions of the
`
`phospholipid backbone. It is undisputed that the claimed krill extracts need contain
`
`only one molecule of the Claimed Phospholipid in order to anticipate the independent
`
`claims at issue.3
`
`Beaudoin I
`
`B.
`One of the grounds for which the Board instituted trial in this IPR proceeding
`
`is that the claims at issue are anticipated by WO 00/23546 (“Beaudoin I” or
`
`“Beaudoin”). Beaudoin I describes krill extracts and discloses multiple processes for
`
`making krill extracts. See Decision Institution of Inter Partes Review, Paper 22 (Mar. 24,
`
`2014) (“Dec. Inst.”) at 10. For example, Beaudoin I discloses a process for making an
`
`extract referred to as “Fraction I” that comprises the steps of subjecting krill to
`
`
`3 See id.; see generally Patent Owner’s Resp. to Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper 66
`
`(Jul. 1, 2014) (“Resp.”) (proffering no claim construction or other argument
`
`regarding quantity of Claimed Phospholipid).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`acetone extraction then separating the solubilized lipid fraction from the solid starting
`
`material. Ex. 1002 at 5:22–6:13. Beaudoin discloses another process for making an
`
`extract referred to as “Fraction II” that comprises taking the solid starting material left
`
`over from the production of Fraction I and subjecting that solid starting material to
`
`another solvent extraction. Id. at 6:15–18. Beaudoin I specifically discloses using E.
`
`pacifica krill as the starting material for creation of Fraction I and Fraction II. See, e.g.,
`
`id. at Tables 1, 2. Beaudoin I further discloses other species may be used in the
`
`alternative. Id. at Tables 3, 4.
`
`C. Neptune’s Inconsistent Positions Regarding Beaudoin I And The
`Claimed Phospholipids
`
`Neptune contends that the ’351 Patent claims are distinguishable over
`
`Beaudoin I because the claims require a Claimed Phospholipid. In other words,
`
`Neptune seeks to persuade the Board that none of the extracts produced by the
`
`methods of Beaudoin I contain even a single Claimed Phospholipid molecule. As
`
`exemplified below, Neptune’s positions on this point are inconsistent with its and its
`
`expert’s own statements, and all of the experimental evidence, including the additional
`
`discovery sought by this motion.
`
`1. Neptune’s Position that Beaudoin I Does Not Result in a
`Claimed Phospholipid Is Inconsistent with Statements in its
`Own Patent
`
`When Neptune filed the application that resulted in the ’351 Patent, it was
`
`obligated, as part of the quid pro quo for obtaining a patent, to “descri[be] …the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`manner and process of making … [the invention], in such full, clear, concise, and
`
`exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains…to make …
`
`the same,” and to “set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint
`
`inventor of carrying out the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)).
`
`There is only one place in the ’351 Patent specification that purports to teach
`
`how to make the allegedly inventive extracts, however, and that is column 18, line 32
`
`through column 19, line 9. There, Neptune informed the PTO (and the public) that
`
`Beaudoin I’s methods could be used to produce its claimed extracts. Neptune
`
`expressly “incorporate[d]” the “entir[e]” “disclosure” of Beaudoin I by reference. Ex.
`
`1001 at 18:32–36. It stated, “[e]xtraction of the phospholipid composition [of its
`
`alleged invention] from the biomass is generally carried out by a method similar to the
`
`one described in commonly owned [Beaudoin I].” Id. Neptune then proceeded to
`
`describe the steps of the method for making its claimed invention using words so
`
`similar to those of Beaudoin I that they appear to have been copied. Below is a
`
`comparison of Beaudoin’s method for making Fraction I and the corresponding
`
`method in the ’351 Patent:
`
`Beaudoin I
`(Ex. 1002 at 5:22–6:6)
`The starting material consisting of freshly
`harvested and preferably finely divided
`marine and aquatic animal material is
`subjected to acetone extraction, for at
`about two hours and preferably
`overnight.
`
`’351 Patent
`(Ex. 1001 at 18:32–19:9)
`Preferably, freshly harvested and finely
`divided marine and aquatic animal
`material is subjected to acetone
`extraction, for at least about two hours
`and preferably overnight.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`However extraction time is not critical to
`the yield of lipid extraction. To facilitate
`extraction, it is preferable to use particles
`of less than 5mm in diameter. Extraction
`is preferably conducted under inert
`atmosphere and at a temperature in the
`order of about 5°C or less.
`Preferably, the beginning of the
`extraction will be conducted under
`agitation for about 10 to 40 minutes,
`preferably 20 minutes. Although
`extraction time is not critical, it was found
`that a 2 hour extraction with 6:1 volume
`ratio of acetone to marine and aquatic
`animal material is best.
`The solubilized lipid fractions are
`separated from the solid material by
`standard techniques including, for
`example, filtration, centrifugation or
`sedimentation. Filtration is preferably
`used.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`However, extraction time is not critical to
`the yield of lipid extracted. Particle sizes
`of comminuted crustacean less than 5
`mm are preferred. The extraction is
`preferably conducted under an inert
`atmosphere and at a temperature of
`about 5 degrees Celsius or less.
`The mixture may be agitated during
`extraction and a volume ratio of about
`6:1 of acetone to biomass is generally
`most preferred.
`
`The solubilized lipid fraction is separated
`from the solid starting material by known
`techniques, for example, by filtration,
`centrifugation or sedimentation. Filtration
`is preferred.
`
`Nowhere does the ’351 Patent say anything about any difference between these
`
`methods. See generally Ex. 1001. Indeed, in the “Background of the Invention”
`
`section, Beaudoin I is the only prior art reference which Neptune did not say was
`
`different. Id. at 1:43–48.
`
`Since Neptune filed its patent application, however, Beaudoin I has been
`
`asserted as anticipatory prior art. Now Neptune is singing a different tune. Contrary
`
`to its initial statements to the PTO and the public that they were similar, Neptune
`
`now says Beaudoin I’s processes are “antithetical to obtaining an extract containing
`
`the [C]laimed [P]hospholipid.” Resp. at 22.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`2. Neptune’s Position That Beaudoin I Does Not Result in A
`Claimed Phospholipid Is Inconsistent with Its Own Expert’s
`Testimony
`
`Neptune’s proposed theory for why Beaudoin is “antithetical” to the Claimed
`
`Phospholipid is that it “requires” a final heating step wherein “[t]o get rid of traces of
`
`organic solvents, lipid fractions I and II are warmed to about 125 °C for about 15
`
`minutes under inert atmosphere.” Resp at 22; Ex. 1002 at 7:18–19. Neptune claims
`
`this “would result in phospholipid and/or omega-3 fatty acid degradation through
`
`hydrolysis and oxidation” (Resp. at 22), and that “Beaudoin’s krill extracts … would
`
`be subject to lipid hydrolysis at temperatures below 100°C.” Ex. 2059 at ¶18.
`
`Neptune’s position is contradicted by its own expert Dr. Jacek Jacynzki. Dr.
`
`Jaczynski admitted without qualification under oath at his deposition that following
`
`Beaudion’s procedure, the Claimed Phospholipid is present before and after the
`
`alleged heating step:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1093 at 179:25–180:9. Additionally, Dr. Jaczynski asserts that heating Beaudoin
`
`oil at 100 °C for over 30 minutes makes the oil “less susceptible to hydrolysis.” Ex. 2059
`
`at ¶51 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`3. Neptune’s Position That Beaudoin I Does Not Result in A
`Claimed Phospholipid Is Inconsistent with All
`the
`Experimental Evidence, Including Neptune’s
`
`AKBM has produced a wealth of experimental evidence showing that
`
`processes disclosed by Beaudoin I necessarily result in krill extracts containing the
`
`Claimed Phospholipids. For example, two independent experts, Dr. Susan Budge and
`
`Dr. Bjørn Ole Hausgjerd, were each tasked with repeating Beaudoin’s processes (with
`
`and without the allegedly required 125 °C heating step) as one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would, and submitting the resulting extracts to additional experts to be tested for
`
`the Claimed Phospholipid. See Exs. 1041, 1047, 1048, 1080. Notably, the Claimed
`
`Phospholipids were present in every Beaudoin I/Fraction I repeat done with E.
`
`pacifica, the starting krill material Beaudoin used. See Ex. 1040 at ¶¶73–78 and ¶¶93–
`
`98; Exs. 1049, 1050.
`
`Neptune has not come forward with any experiments of its own supporting its
`
`argument that Beaudoin I does not anticipate its claims. In fact, the only experiments
`
`Neptune has conducted confirm Beaudoin I anticipates. In 2009, Neptune sent
`
`“Beaudoin Oil” to its outside mass spectrometry expert Dr. Earl White to be analyzed
`
`for Claimed Phospholipids. Ex. 1103 at 38:17-42:2, 44:24–45:6. Dr. White found
`
`Claimed Phospholipids in Neptune’s Beaudoin samples and gave Neptune a report
`
`concluding that he detected them. Id. at 55:18–58:14; Ex. 1098 at NEP877ITC-
`
`00267600–02. This occurred during prosecution of the ’351 Patent’s parent
`
`application, App. No. 10/485,094 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,030,348) (the “’348 Patent”), but
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`Neptune never disclosed the report to the PTO. Later, in 2011, Neptune again sent
`
`“Beaudoin oil” to Dr. White for analysis. Ex. 1103 at 81:7–19, 82:6–10. This time,
`
`Dr. White sent Neptune a report in which he concluded that the samples “do not
`
`have” Claimed Phospholipids. Ex. 1099 at NEP877ITC-00003369. Neptune
`
`submitted this 2011 report to the PTO and used it to convince the PTO that
`
`Beaudoin I did not anticipate its alleged invention.4 But as Dr. White later testified,
`
`he actually detected m/z ratios corresponding to Claimed Phospholipids in the 2011
`
`samples—the very same m/z ratios he detected in 2009 and upon which he relied in
`
`2009 in the report concluding the Claimed Phospholipids were present that Neptune
`
`never sent to the PTO. Ex. 1103 at 117:8–119:25, 121:1–11, 122:4–125:8. What’s
`
`more, AKBM obtained samples of the oil Dr. White tested in 2009 and 2011 and sent
`
`them to its expert Dr. Richard van Breeman, who detected the Claimed Phospholipids
`
`in every one of the samples. Ex. 1102 at 38:16–41:11. Neptune has never disputed
`
`AKBM’s mass spectrometry test results showing the presence of the Claimed
`
`Phospholipids
`
`in any of
`
`the Budge, Haugsgjerd, or Neptune repeats of
`
`
`4 See Ex. 1100 at 2 (“Applicants have overcome the rejection of record (rejection of
`
`claims as anticipated by Beaudoin et al. (WO/ 00/23546)[)] by submission of a
`
`Declaration by Earl L. White which indicates that the oil extracts produced by
`
`following the Beaudoin et al. disclosure does not contain the instantly claimed
`
`phospholipid esterified with DHA and/or EPA fatty acids.”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`Beaudoin. Thus, all of the experimental evidence—including that Neptune created
`
`but hid from the PTO, and that which Neptune relied upon in front of the PTO to
`
`get its patents—shows that Beaudoin results in the Claimed Phospholipids.
`
`D. The Requested Documents Comprise Additional Statements And
`Experimental Evidence Contradicting Neptune’s Position That
`Beaudoin I Does Not Result In A Claimed Phospholipid
`
`As explained above, Neptune’s arguments attempting to distinguish Beaudoin I
`
`on the basis of the Claimed Phospholipid are contradicted again and again by
`
`Neptune’s own statements and experimental evidence. The documents AKBM seeks
`
`add to this contradictory evidence, and will help AKBM show that Neptune’s
`
`arguments are not only wrong, but not credible.
`
`Email to Tina Sampalis regarding CaPre (RX-0456C)
`
`This is an email between a Neptune subsidiary executive and named inventor
`
`Tina Sampalis regarding CaPre. CaPre is a krill oil product that “contains EPA and
`
`DHA bound to phospholipids.” Ex. 1101. This email contains data which contradict
`
`Neptune’s claims that the alleged heating step of Beaudoin “would result in
`
`phospholipid and/or omega-3 fatty acid degradation through hydrolysis and
`
`oxidation.” Resp. at 22. During the August 26, 2014 conference call with the Board,
`
`Neptune argued this email was irrelevant because CaPre is a “commercial product.”
`
`Ex. 2064 at 18:17. But Neptune has identified nothing showing that any alleged
`
`difference between CaPre and Beaudoin would actually make a difference that renders
`
`the data in the email irrelevant. Indeed, Neptune’s claim that data about CaPre is
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`“irrelevant” to Beaudoin oil (because it may be different krill oil) contradicts
`
`Neptune’s heavy reliance on data about soybean oil to show what allegedly happens
`
`when Beaudoin oil is heated. See Resp. at 23.
`
`Transcript of the deposition of Tina Sampalis, Volumes I–III
`
`This is deposition testimony from Tina Sampalis from the ITC Investigation.
`
`Tina Sampalis is the sole named inventor of the ’351 Patent and an officer of
`
`Neptune. Her testimony is useful to support a number of AKBM’s positions,
`
`including that there is no meaningful difference between Beaudoin’s methods and the
`
`’351 Patent methods, and that Neptune’s assertions as to what Dr. Sampalis invented
`
`(see Resp. at 4) lack support. It also discusses statements that are inconsistent with
`
`Neptune’s claim that the alleged heating step of Beaudoin “would result in
`
`phospholipid and/or omega-3 fatty acid degradation through hydrolysis and
`
`oxidation.” Resp. at 22.
`
`Report on NKO (RX-0398C)
`
`In an attempt to distinguish dependent claims 5 and 28 from Beaudoin,
`
`Neptune argues that “a concentration of free fatty acids of about 5% w/w” should be
`
`construed to require 2.5%–7.5% w/w free fatty acids. It apparently views its
`
`proposed construction to be the broadest “reasonable” construction, even though the
`
`Board construed the range–and Neptune in the ’351 Patent expressly defined the
`
`range –to be broader. Ex. 1001 at 21:61–63; Dec. Inst. at 8. Neptune argues its
`
`proposed construction is proper because it is “consistent” with the alleged “core
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`teaching of the ’351 patent, namely, recovery of intact phospholipids in a krill
`
`extract.” Resp. at 12.
`
`NKO is Neptune’s krill oil product that Neptune says contains the claimed
`
`phospholipid and practices the ’351 Patent. The report on NKO contains data that
`
`undermines Neptune’s position that its narrow proposed construction should be
`
`chosen because it is “consistent with” the presence of the intact phospholipids.
`
`Transcript of the deposition of Pierre St-Jean and Exhibits 4 and 5 thereto
`
`These documents relate to Neptune’s own repeats of the Beaudoin process.
`
`They are especially helpful to contradict Neptune’s claims that Beaudoin does not
`
`result in the Claimed Phospholipid and that AKBM’s experts misinterpreted Beaudoin
`
`in their experiments by, for example, using “tools” like a separatory funnel to conduct
`
`the water separation step. Resp. at 27–29.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Legal Standard
`“[A] party must serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position
`
`advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the
`
`documents or things that contains the inconsistency.” 37 C.F.R. 42.51(b)(1)(iii).
`
`Whether information is “inconsistent” “depends on content and context.” IPR2013-
`
`00041, St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. The Board of Regents of the Univ. of Michigan,
`
`Paper 19 (Jul. 12, 2013) (“St. Jude”) at 4. “Board experience has shown that the
`
`information covered by § 42.51(b)(1)(iii) is typically sought through additional
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`discovery and … leads to the production of relevant evidence.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48612 at
`
`48622 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`“Additional discovery” may be granted if it serves the “interests of justice.” 37
`
`C.F.R. 42.51(b)(2)(i). In evaluating additional discovery requests, the Board considers:
`
`whether (1) there is more than a “mere possibility of finding something useful, and
`
`mere allegation that something useful will be found”; (2) the discovery seeks
`
`“litigation positions”; (3) there is an “ability to generate equivalent information by
`
`other means”; and whether the requests are (4) “easily understandable” or (5) “overly
`
`burdensome.” Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`Paper 26 at 6–7 (March 5, 2013) (“Garmin”). “‘[U]seful’ means favorable in
`
`substantive value to a contention of the party moving for discovery.” Id. at 7.
`
`B. The Documents AKBM Seeks Would Be Useful
`There is far more than a “mere possibility” or allegation that the requested
`
`documents are useful. First, the documents are known to exist and be in Neptune’s
`
`possession. Neptune already produced them in the ITC Investigation. Second, there
`
`is no possibility that the requested documents will not turn out to be useful. There is
`
`no guesswork as to what they might contain; AKBM actually used the documents in the
`
`ITC Investigation to support its arguments that the claims at issue in this IPR are
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`anticipated by Beaudoin I.5 Third, as discussed above, the documents are known to
`
`contain statements and data that are inconsistent with Neptune’s positions, and
`
`AKBM can use them to support its arguments that Neptune’s arguments are fiction.
`
`It is not surprising that the documents contain inconsistent information, as AKBM
`
`already has shown that other evidence of record contradicts Neptune’s positions.
`
`Accordingly, the requested documents are favorable in substantive value to AKBM’s
`
`positions on central issues in the IPR, making them “useful” under Garmin.
`
`C. The Remaining Garmin Factors Favor Production
`AKBM does not seek litigation positions or anything that AKBM could obtain
`
`by other means. The documents and testimony are Neptune’s. Finally, AKBM’s
`
`requests for eight specifically identified documents are easily understandable and
`
`involve no burden.
`
`D. Neptune Provides No Valid Reasons For Opposing Re-Production
` None of the reasons Neptune has identified for refusing to produce the
`
`documents to AKBM (again) is valid. Neptune’s real reason for not producing the
`
`discovery is that it hurts Neptune’s positions.
`
`Neptune says the documents are confidential, but confidentiality is not a basis
`
`for withholding discovery (see, e.g., St. Jude at 3 (“the secret nature” of a party’s
`
`
`5 The ITC Investigation was terminated before AKBM’s arguments were addressed
`
`on the merits.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`document “does not shield it from possibly containing inconsistent information”)),
`
`and the agreed Protective Order will protect confidentiality. Neptune says the
`
`Protective Order is deficient, but it drafted it and moved for its entry. See Mot. for
`
`Entry of Protective Order (May 5, 2014); Ex. 2033. And Paragraph 6 of the Order
`
`contemplates production of confidential information from the ITC Investigation. Id.
`
`In fact, AKBM had already told Neptune it was interested in using the Sampalis
`
`transcripts by the time Neptune proposed entry of this Order. Nothing warrants
`
`Neptune’s sudden claim that its own handiwork is deficient. Neptune notes that the
`
`Board could rely on its confidential information in public opinions, but that is
`
`standard language in IPR protective orders, and were the Board to accept this
`
`argument, nearly any party could use it to circumvent its discovery obligations.
`
`Neptune also claims the documents are not relevant. AKBM has explained
`
`above why they are directly relevant. Conveniently for Neptune, AKBM cannot
`
`address Neptune’s relevance arguments in detail because Neptune set them out in a
`
`letter it marked “confidential.” The Board should be permitted to judge whether the
`
`documents are relevant without Neptune standing in the way. In any event,
`
`Neptune’s claim that the documents are not relevant is an inconsistency in and of
`
`itself. If the documents truly were not relevant, Neptune would not be so concerned
`
`about the Board relying on them in its decisions.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should grant AKBM’s motion.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Amanada J. Hollis/
`Amanda J. Hollis (Reg. No. 55,629)
`amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 N. LaSalle St.
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: (312) 862-2011
`Fax: (312) 862-2200
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`J. Mitchell Jones, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 44,174)
`jmjones@casimirjones.com
`CASIMIR JONES SC
`2275 Deming Way, Suite 310
`Middleton, WI 53562
`Tel: (608) 662-1277
`Fax: (608) 662-1276
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 5, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Petitioner’s Motion
`Case No: IPR2014-00003
`
`
`
`I hereby certify pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b) that a complete
`
`copy of this Motion for Additional Discovery is being served electronically via e-
`
`mail (as consented to by the Patent Owner), on September 5, 2014, the same day as
`
`the filing of the above-identified documents in the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (USPTO), upon:
`
`Jonathan G. Graves
`jgraves@cooley.com
`Cooley LLP
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 20190
`Tel: (703) 456-8119
`Fax: (703) 456 8100
`Backup Counsel for Patent Owner
`
` /Amanda J. Hollis/
` Amanda J. Hollis
`
`17
`
`J. Dean Farmer, Ph.D.
`dfarmer@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`Cooley LLP
`Attn: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste. 700
`Washington, D.C.
`Tel: (617) 937-2370
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner