IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-1206 (LPS)
`CONSOLIDATED
`
`))))))))))))
`
`UCB, INC., UCB PHARMA GMBH,
`RESEARCH CORPORATION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and HARRIS FRC
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`JOINT INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS NOS. 1-9
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the applicable
`
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Plaintiffs UCB, Inc.,
`
`UCB Pharma GmbH (“UCB”), Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (“RCT”), and Harris
`
`FRC Corp. (“Harris”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) hereby respond to Defendants Accord
`
`Healthcare, Inc.; Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.; Amneal
`
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC; Apotex, Inc.; Apotex
`
`Corp.; Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.; Breckenridge Pharmaceutical,
`
`Inc.; Vennoot Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics, Ltd.;
`
`Hetero USA Inc.; Hetero Labs Limited; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Sandoz, Inc.;
`
`Sun Pharma Global FZE; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc. –
`
`Florida; Watson Pharma, Inc. (n/k/a Actavis Pharma, Inc.); Actavis, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals
`
`(USA), Inc.; and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively “Defendants”) First Set of Joint Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Plaintiffs as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 1
`
`

`

`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`The following general objections are made to each of the interrogatories, in
`
`addition to any objections that are addressed to particular interrogatories:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`incorporate by reference
`
`their general objections
`
`from
`
`“Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Joint Requests for Documents and Things to
`
`Plaintiffs Nos. 1-45.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories as premature to the extent that the
`
`subject matter of the interrogatories is more properly addressed by other forms of discovery,
`
`including expert discovery.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories as premature to the extent that the
`
`Defendants bear the burden of proof regarding the subject matter of the interrogatory. The
`
`scheduling order in this case states that “[i]n the absence of agreement among the parties,
`
`contention interrogatories, if filed, shall first be addressed by the party with the burden of proof.”
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek or
`
`require expert testimony. Expert discovery has not yet begun. Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`
`supplement these responses following expert discovery and/or as required by the Local and/or
`
`Federal Rules.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories to the extent they seek a response
`
`that would reveal information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-
`
`product immunity, or any other privilege, protection or immunity. Such information will not be
`
`provided in response to Defendants’ requests. Nothing in Plaintiffs’ responses to the
`
`interrogatories is intended as, or shall in any way be deemed to operate as, a waiver of any
`
`attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or any other applicable privilege, protection,
`
`immunity, claim, defense or objection to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 2
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Plaintiffs object to providing
`
`responses to the interrogatories where the information can be derived from documents that will
`
`be produced and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same
`
`for either party.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs object to providing responses to the interrogatories that request
`
`information concerning “each,” “every,” or “all” persons, communications, documents, or the
`
`like, on the grounds that providing a response to such interrogatories would be unduly
`
`burdensome. When applicable and appropriate, summary information or representative
`
`documents may be provided.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs object on relevance grounds to the production of information,
`
`documents, and things dated or created after July 6, 2004, except to the extent such items are
`
`dated after July 6, 2004 and concern ownership of the patent-in-suit, infringement, asserted
`
`secondary
`
`indicia of non-obviousness (if Plaintiffs assert such considerations) and/or
`
`communications with the FDA regarding IND Nos. 57939, 68407 and/or NDA Nos. 022253,
`
`022254, and 022255.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs object to the interrogatories, including but not limited to the
`
`“Definitions” and “Instructions” of the interrogatories, insofar as they impose any obligation
`
`beyond that contained under Federal, Local, and other applicable rules.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`
`that is publicly available and equally accessible to Defendants.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to rely, at any time including trial,
`
`upon subsequently discovered information or information omitted from the specific responses set
`
`forth below as a result of mistake, oversight or inadvertence.
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 3
`
`

`

`12.
`
`Plaintiffs object to each interrogatory that requests more than one category
`
`of information. Each subpart will be counted as a separate interrogatory.
`
`13.
`
`Discovery relating to this action is in its very early stages and Plaintiffs’
`
`investigation of the facts is continuing. Thus, the responses to these interrogatories are based on
`
`currently available information and Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend and/or supplement these
`
`responses as discovery proceeds. Further, Plaintiffs’ responses to the interrogatories are made
`
`without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to introduce any and all documents and other evidence of
`
`any kind in future proceedings in this action.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs have responded to the interrogatories as they interpret and
`
`understand each of them. If Defendants subsequently asserts an interpretation of any of the
`
`interrogatories that differs from Plaintiffs’ understanding, Plaintiffs reserve the right to
`
`supplement their objections and/or responses.
`
`15.
`
`Any statement that Plaintiffs will identify documents does not constitute a
`
`representation that Plaintiffs possess any such documents, or that such documentation exists, and
`
`is not to be construed as an admission with respect to any issue in this action.
`
`16.
`
`Any individuals listed in response to Defendants’ interrogatories can be
`
`contacted through Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto.
`
`RESPONSES TO JOINT REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`For each asserted claim of the ‘551 Patent, describe in full and informative detail
`the conception, diligent reduction to practice, and actual reduction to practice (if any) of the
`claimed subject matter, including the first conception of the compound known as 2-acetamido-N-
`benzyl-3-methoxypropionamide
`or N-benzyl-2-acetamido-3-methoxypropionamide. This
`description should include without limitation the alleged dates and locations of any such
`conception, diligent reduction to practice, and actual reduction to practice, the individuals
`involved and each of their respective roles and pieces of work, any witnesses, the surrounding
`circumstances, and any supporting documents and/or other evidence.
`
`- 4 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 4
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.1:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as
`
`seeking information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, Plaintiffs object to
`
`“pieces of work” and “surrounding circumstances” as vague and ambiguous and, to the extent it
`
`is understood, as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs also object to the description
`
`of “any witnesses” as overly broad and unduly burdensome and as seeking information that is
`
`neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as premature and/or is not relevant to
`
`nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because Defendants
`
`have not made of record any fact that makes the conception and reduction to practice of the
`
`subject matter of the ’551 Patent relevant.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks premature
`
`expert testimony—under the Scheduling order in this case, rebuttal expert reports are not due
`
`until May 4, 2015 and expert discovery will not be completed until July 16, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d), the information can be derived from documents which will be produced and the burden of
`
`deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Plaintiffs also
`
`- 5 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 5
`
`

`

`object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendants can determine the information they
`
`seek from other discovery methods better suited to discovery of this information.
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific objections, and consistent with Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 33(d), Plaintiffs will produce documents from which the answer to this interrogatory
`
`may be derived or ascertained, including documents regarding the research and development
`
`leading up to the inventions claimed in the ’551 Patent—other than case report forms, batch
`
`records, and other raw data. In addition, Plaintiffs identify the inventor of the ’551 Patent, Dr.
`
`Harold Kohn, as knowledgeable concerning the work on the inventions claimed in the ’551
`
`Patent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.2:
`
`Describe in full and informative detail the level of education, training, specialty,
`and experience which Plaintiffs contend a person having ordinary skill in the art for the subject
`matter described and claimed in the ‘551 Patent would have had as of the date of the claimed
`invention(s).
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.2:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks premature
`
`expert testimony—under the Scheduling order in this case, affirmative expert reports are not due
`
`until March 4, 2015 and expert discovery will not be completed until July 16, 2015.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`Plaintiffs respond as follows: a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) of the ’551 Patent
`
`- 6 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 6
`
`

`

`would be a scientist with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry or medicinal chemistry with at least two
`
`years of experience in the synthesis of organic compounds; or a physician trained in a clinical
`
`specialty focused on the treatment of epilepsy with anticonvulsant drugs; or a scientist with a
`
`Ph.D. in pharmacology and at least five years of experience working with various animal models
`
`for epilepsy and seizures, or a highly skilled technician lacking a Ph.D., but with a Master’s
`
`degree and at least seven years of experience working with various animal models for epilepsy
`
`and seizures.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.3:
`
`Identify each person who participated in any way (including, but not limited to,
`providing technical input, reviewing or commenting on communications from the PTO,
`preparing and filing papers in the PTO, or participating in interviews with examiners) in the
`preparation and/or prosecution of the ‘551 Patent, any patents or applications from which the
`‘551 Patent issued or reissued, any applications to which the ‘551 Patent claims priority, and any
`foreign counterparts of the ‘551 Patent or of applications to which the ‘551 Patent claims
`priority, and describe in full and informative detail the nature and extent of participation of each
`such person and identify his or her current employer and business address.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and as
`
`seeking information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense in this action nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. For example, to the extent it seeks
`
`information relating to “foreign counterparts” and seeks the identity of “each person who
`
`participated in any way” in the delineated activities and because it seeks discovery of unclaimed
`
`subject matter or relates to patents and/or claims not asserted in this litigation, and to the extent it
`
`seeks the identification of persons that may be identified from publicly available information.
`
`Plaintiffs will interpret this interrogatory as seeking the identification of the persons who were
`
`directly involved in the preparation or prosecution of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`- 7 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 7
`
`

`

`60/013,522 (the “’522 provisional application”), U.S. Patent Application Nos. 08/818,688 (the
`
`“’688 application”) and 10/058,634 (the “’634 application”).
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as containing multiple subparts.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d), the information can be derived from documents which will be produced and the burden of
`
`deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Plaintiffs also
`
`object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendants can determine the information they
`
`seek from other discovery methods better suited to discovery of this information.
`
`Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Plaintiffs respond as
`
`follows: Mark J. Cohen, attorney at Scully, Scott, Murphy & Presser, 400 Garden City Plaza,
`
`Garden City, NY 11530 was involved in the preparation and prosecution of the ’522 provisional
`
`application, ’688 application and’634 application.
`
`Dr. Harold Kohn is the inventor of the subject matter claimed in the ’688
`
`application; he reviewed and understood the contents of the specification and claims of the ’688
`
`application, as filed on March 17, 1997, and signed a Declaration in Support of Reissue under 37
`
`C.F.R. §1.175, having reviewed and understood the contents of the specification and claims of
`
`the ’475 patent and the specification and claims of the ’634 application.
`
`- 8 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 8
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORY NO.4:
`
`Describe in full and informative detail all facts, evidence, and arguments that
`Plaintiffs contend rebut any claims that the claimed invention of the ‘551 Patent is anticipated by
`the Prior Art, including all documents and information supporting or contradicting such
`contentions, and the persons most knowledgeable of such contentions and documents. In
`describing such contentions, include but do not limit your description to the facts, evidence, and
`arguments that you contend rebut the arguments in Defendants’ Notice Letters and Defendants’
`Initial Invalidity Contentions, including all arguments that the claimed invention of the ‘551
`Patent is anticipated by each of the ‘301 Patent, the ‘729 Patent, and the LeGall Thesis.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.4:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks premature
`
`expert testimony—under the Scheduling order in this case, rebuttal expert reports are not due
`
`until May 4, 2015 and expert discovery will not be completed until July 16, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature and/or not relevant to nor
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282,
`
`the ’551 Patent is presumed valid. Although certain Defendants pled invalidity of the ’551 Patent
`
`in boilerplate invalidity assertions in their Answers, Defendants bear the burden of proving that
`
`assertion by clear and convincing evidence, and have failed to put forth sufficient evidence in
`
`support of their assertion.
`
`Also, Defendants have not provided to Plaintiffs “Defendants’ Initial Invalidity
`
`Contentions,” which are referred to in this interrogatory.
`
`- 9 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 9
`
`

`

`Finally, the Scheduling Order in this case states that “[i]n the absence of
`
`agreement among the parties, contention interrogatories, if filed, shall first be addressed by the
`
`party with the burden of proof.” There has been no agreement among the parties and thus, at the
`
`present time, Plaintiffs have not and need not have completely formulated their contentions on
`
`this subject.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.5:
`
`Describe in full and informative detail all facts, evidence, and arguments that
`Plaintiffs contend rebut any claims that the claimed invention of the ‘551 Patent is obvious over
`or in view of the Prior Art, including all documents and information supporting or contradicting
`such contentions, and the persons most knowledgeable of such contentions and documents. In
`describing such contentions, include but do not limit your description to the facts, evidence, and
`arguments in Defendants’ Notice Letters and Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions,
`including all arguments that the ‘551 Patent is obvious over, among other Prior Art, the ‘729
`Patent, the LeGall Thesis, the European Patents, the Kohn Articles, and the Conley Thesis, in
`view of knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5:
`
`See Plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.6:
`
`Describe in full and informative detail all facts, evidence, and arguments that
`Plaintiffs contend rebut any claims that the claimed invention of the ‘551 Patent is invalid for
`obviousness type double patenting, including all documents and information supporting or
`contradicting such contentions, and the persons most knowledgeable of such contentions and
`documents. In describing such contentions, include but do not limit your description to the facts,
`evidence, and arguments that you contend rebut the arguments in Defendants’ Notice Letters and
`Defendants’ Initial Invalidity Contentions, including all arguments that the ‘551 Patent is invalid
`for obviousness-type double patenting over each of the ‘301 Patent and the ‘729 Patent.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6:
`
`See Plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.7:
`
`Describe in full and informative detail all facts, evidence, and arguments that
`Plaintiffs contend show that each of claims 39-47 of the ‘301 Patent satisfy the enablement and
`written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, including without limitation all documents
`
`- 10 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 10
`
`

`

`information supporting or contradicting such contentions, and the persons most
`and
`knowledgeable of such contentions and documents.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7:
`
`See Plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO.8:
`
`State whether Plaintiffs contend that the LeGall Thesis qualifies as publicly
`accessible Prior Art to the ‘551 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For any response other than an
`unqualified yes, describe in full and informative detail all facts, evidence, and arguments
`supporting or contradicting Plaintiffs’ contentions, including all related documents and
`information, and the persons most knowledgeable of such contentions and documents.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.8:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory as, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`33(d), the information can be derived from documents which will be produced and the burden of
`
`deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Plaintiffs also
`
`object to this interrogatory on the grounds that Defendants can determine the information they
`
`seek from other discovery methods better suited to discovery of this information.
`
`Plaintiffs have not finalized their investigation as to whether the LeGall Thesis
`
`qualifies as publicly accessible Prior Art to the ’551 Patent; document collection and review is at
`
`the early stages and is not yet complete. Plaintiffs will supplement their interrogatory response
`
`when the facts requested have been appropriately ascertained.
`
`- 11 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 11
`
`

`

`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`For all claims in the ‘551 Patent that are being asserted against Defendants,
`identify whether Plaintiffs intend to raise or rely on any assertion of secondary considerations in
`connection with any allegation that such claims are not obvious and, if so, identify the specific
`secondary considerations on which Plaintiffs intend to rely (e.g., commercial success, long-felt
`need, failure by others, etc.), all facts and documents supporting Plaintiffs’ secondary
`consideration assertions (including, but not limited to, in the case of commercial success, proof
`of nexus, profit margins, marketing expenditures, etc.), and the persons most knowledgeable
`about such considerations and documents.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity.
`
`Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature to the extent that fact discovery
`
`has only just commenced and is not scheduled to be completed until January 15, 2015.
`
`Plaintiffs also object to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks premature
`
`expert testimony—under the Scheduling order in this case, rebuttal expert reports are not due
`
`until May 4, 2015 and expert discovery will not be completed until July 16, 2015.
`
`The claims of the ’511 Patent are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. It is
`
`Defendants’ burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiffs may rely
`
`upon secondary considerations of nonobviousness in connection with any allegation of
`
`obviousness asserted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103, and/or any doctrine that implicates such
`
`secondary considerations.
`
` The persons most knowledgeable about such secondary
`
`considerations may include experts who will be identified in accordance with the schedule set by
`
`the Court. Documents supporting Plaintiffs’ response to this interrogatory may include those
`
`identified in expert reports submitted in compliance with the schedule set by the Court.
`
`- 12 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 12
`
`

`

`The following is a list of secondary considerations of nonobviousness upon which
`
`Plaintiffs may rely upon:
`
`LONG-FELT BUT UNMET NEED: At the time of the invention claimed in the
`
`’511 Patent, there was a long-felt but unmet need for an effective method of treating patients
`
`suffering from partial-onset seizures. The invention of the ’511 Patent met that need.
`
`COPYING: By filing ANDAs, Defendants seek to copy the invention of the ’511
`
`Patent by commercializing generic versions of lacosamide.
`
`ADDITIONAL SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS:
`
` Other
`
`secondary
`
`considerations, such as unexpected results, skepticism and failures of others are closely related
`
`and intertwined with the above considerations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Maryellen Noreika
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Maryellen Noreika (#3208)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`mnoreika@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs UCB, Inc., UCB
`Pharma GmbH, Research Corporation
`Technologies, Inc. and Harris FRC
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert L. Baechtold
`Scott K. Reed
`Ha Kung Wong
`Joshua I. Rothman
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10104-3800
`(212) 218-2100
`
`April 14, 2014
`
`- 13 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 13
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, hereby certify that on April 14, 2014, copies of the foregoing were caused to be
`
`served upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`John W. Shaw, Esquire
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Accord Healthcare,
`Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
`
`Karen Bromberg, Esquire
`Gurprett Singh Walia, M.D.
`COHEN & GRESSER LLP
`800 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Attorneys for Defendants Accord Healthcare,
`Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
`
`Richard G. Greco, Esquire
`Richard G. Greco PC
`C/O COHEN & GRESSER LLP
`800 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Attorneys for Defendants Accord Healthcare,
`Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
`
`Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
`Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esquire
`BAYARD, P.A.
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Alembic
`Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Alembic Limited
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 14
`
`

`

`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Jeffer Ali, Esquire
`Sarah M. Stensland, Esquire
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, PA
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55403
`Attorneys for Defendants Alembic
`Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Alembic Limited
`
`John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire
`Megan C. Haney, Esquire
`PHILLIPS GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A.
`1200 North Broom Street
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Attorneys for Defendants Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo
`Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.,
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Venoot
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Sandoz, Inc., Sun
`Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharmaceutical
`Industries, Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc. –
`Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc. and Actavis, Inc.
`
`George C. Lombardi, Esquire
`James F. Hurst, Esquire
`Michael K. Nutter, Esquire
`Maureen L. Rurka, Esquire
`Samuel S. Park, Esquire
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Attorneys for Defendants Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo
`Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.,
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Venoot
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Sandoz, Inc., Sun
`Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharmaceutical
`Industries, Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc. –
`Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc. and Actavis, Inc.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 15
`
`

`

`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Charles B. Klein, Esquire
`John K. Hsu, Esquire
`Eimeric Reig-Plessis, Esquire
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 2006
`Attorneys for Defendants Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Amneal
`Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Aurobindo
`Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.,
`Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Venoot
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Sandoz, Inc., Sun
`Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharmaceutical
`Industries, Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc. –
`Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc. and Actavis, Inc.
`
`Robert Vroom, Esquire
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
`60 East 42nd Street, Suite 5210
`New York, NY 10165
`Attorneys for Defendants Breckenridge
`Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Venoot
`Pharmaceuticals, LLC
`
`Kenneth L. Dorsney, Esquire
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Apotex Corp. and
`Apotex Inc.
`
`Richard T. Ruzich, Esquire
`Stephen R. Auten, Esquire
`Ian Scott, Esquire
`TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
`111 East Wacker, Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Attorneys for Defendants Apotex Corp. and
`Apotex, Inc.
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 16
`
`

`

`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`David A. Dorey, Esquire
`BLANK ROME LLP
`1201 Market Street, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Glenmark Generics
`Inc., USA and Glenmark Generics Ltd.
`
`Alred W. Zaher, Esquire
`Joel L. Dion, Esquire
`BLANK ROME LLP
`One Logan Square
`130 North 18th Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
`Attorneys for Defendants Glenmark Generics
`Inc., USA and Glenmark Generics Ltd.
`
`Jay P. Lessler, Esquire
`BLANK ROME LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174-0208
`Attorneys for Defendants Glenmark Generics
`Inc., USA and Glenmark Generics Ltd.
`
`Dominick T. Gattuso, Esquire
`PROCTOR HEYMAN LLP
`300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Hetero USA Inc. and
`Hetero Labs Limited
`
`Chad A. Landmon, Esquire
`Thomas K. Hedemann, Esquire
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`90 State House Square, 9th Floor
`Hartford, CT 06103-3704
`Attorneys for Defendants Hetero USA Inc. and
`Hetero Labs Limited
`
`Dan Feng Mei, Esquire
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`114 West 47th Street
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Defendants Hetero USA Inc. and
`Hetero Labs Limited
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 17
`
`

`

`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Adam W. Poff, Esquire
`Pilar Kraman, Esquire
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan, Inc.
`
`Nicole Stafford, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI, P.C.
`900 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor
`Austin, TX 78746
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan, Inc.
`
`
`Wendy L. Devine, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI, P.C.
`12235 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan, Inc.
`
`Tiffany Nichols, Esquire
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Attorneys for Defendants Mylan
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan, Inc.
`
`Francis J. Murphy, Esquire
`MURPHY & LANDON
`1011 Centre Road, Suite 210
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Attorneys for Defendants Zydus
`Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila
`Healthcare Ltd. d/b/a Zydus Cadila
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`IPR2014-01126- Exhibit 1013, p. 18
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael J. Gaertner, Esquire
`David B. Abramowitz, Esquire
`Timothy F. Peterson, Esquire
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`111 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Attorneys for Defendants Zydus
`Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila
`Healthcare Ltd. d/b/a Zydus Cadila
`
`Andrea L. Wayda, Esquire
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`Thr