Filed: April 22, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`————————————————
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`————————————————
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643 (8,232,250 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00644 (8,399,413 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00830 (8,969,302 B2)1,2
`————————————————
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON REPLY
`
`
`
`1 Case Nos. IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980 and IPR2015-01981 have been
`
`joined with these proceedings.
`
`2 A word-for-word identical Response is being filed in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`————————————————
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`————————————————
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00643 (8,232,250 B2)
`Case No. IPR2015-00644 (8,399,413 B2)
` Case No. IPR2015-00830 (8,969,302 B2)1,2
`————————————————
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`OBSERVATIONS ON REPLY
`
`
`
`1 Case Nos. IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980 and IPR2015-01981 have been
`
`joined with these proceedings.
`
`2 A word-for-word identical Response is being filed in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`CNS ...................................................................................... Central Nervous System
`
`FDA ............................................................................ Food and Drug Administration
`
`GA ................................................................................................. Glatiramer Acetate
`
`ISR ........................................................................................... Injection Site Reaction
`
`MBP .......................................................................................... Myelin Basic Protein
`
`MOA ......................................................................................... Mechanism of Action
`
`OOCE .................................................................. Observation on Cross Examination
`
`PK ................................................................................................. Pharmacodynamics
`
`POSA .................................................................... Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`SBOA ...........................................................Summary Basis of Approval (Ex. 1007)
`
`SEC ................................................................. Securities and Exchange Commission
`
`TIW ................................................................................... Three Injections Per Week
`
`Yeda .................................... Patent Owner Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Petitioners hereby file their response to Patent Owner’s Observations on
`
`Cross Examination (“OOCE”). IPR2105-00643, Paper 71.
`
`Response 1-6, 23-24, 26, 31-32, 35: Yeda’s OOCEs misstate the record. These
`
`OOCEs are not the “testimony” of Dr. Hay or Dr. Green as asserted by Yeda.
`
`Rather, Yeda has repackaged its attorney’s reading of selected passages of
`
`documents into the record as the experts’ “testimony.” The question and answer
`
`underlying OOCE 35 is illustrative of Yeda’s approach:
`
`Q. Okay. And then the second paragraph under that section states,
`“Copaxone revenues in the United States in 2015 increased four
`percent to $3.2 billion.” Do you see that?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And then I want to direct your attention about -- to the last
`paragraph on the page, which states: “Copaxone accounted for 20
`percent of our revenues in 2015 and is significantly higher percentage
`contribution to our profits and cash flow from operations during such
`period.” Do you see that?
`A. Yeah. And that’s exactly the kind of misleading statement that I
`would never be able to rely on to look at the profits or the returns on
`investment associated with Copaxone.
`
`Ex. 1141 at 98:6-25. Yeda states that Dr. Hay testified that “Copaxone revenues in
`
`the United States in 2015 increased four percent to $3.2 billion” and “Copaxone
`
`accounted for 20 percent of our revenues in 2015 and is [a] significantly higher
`
`percentage contribution to our profits and cash flow from operations during such
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`period.” Yeda repeated this approach throughout both depositions.3 In view of
`
`Yeda’s improper use of these observations, OOCEs 1-6, 23-24, 26, 31-32, 35
`
`should be struck.
`
`Response 1: Yeda concludes that “testimony” attributed to Dr. Green “contradicts”
`
`Dr. Green’s assertion that a POSA would not rely on Yeda’s MOA theory that an
`
`increase in Th2 cells counteracted inflammation in the CNS to account for GA’s
`
`therapeutic effect. But the cited testimony omits Dr. Green’s testimony that “I
`
`think that should be qualified.” Ex. 1142 at 224:2-3. In fact, even the question
`
`posed to Dr. Green demonstrates his express qualification:
`
`And with the caveat that you stated earlier, that we still don't know
`today exactly all of the details of the mechanism of action of GA in
`2009, this increase in Th2 cells theory was one of the leading theories
`of how glatiramer acetate worked in patients; right?
`
`Id. at 223:20-25 (emphasis added). Yeda also failed to cite to Dr. Green’s
`
`qualification immediately following the quoted passage: “So I don’t think people
`
`thought in 2009, or around that time, that this was exclusively the mechanism of
`
`3 After a series of such questions, Dr. Green pointed out in his deposition (Ex. 1142
`
`at 285:21-286:1):
`
`I’m not sure if the exercise here is for you to read parts of papers and
`ask me if you’ve read them correctly. I thought it was to ask me
`questions about how these influenced my opinion and ask questions
`about my opinion. So I think it’s important to provide that context.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`action.” Id. at 224:6-8. Further, Dr. Green testified that Yeda’s proposed MOA
`
`theory was “not the only and perhaps even not the major mechanism of action by
`
`which the drug worked.” Id. at 226:9-11. Moreover, the testimony cited by Yeda in
`
`no way “contradicts” Dr. Green’s opinion that a POSA would rely on demonstrated
`
`clinical evidence over a hypothetical MOA theory. Dr. Green testified that a POSA
`
`would first look to the clinical literature, “which was overwhelming.” Id. at
`
`273:21-24 (testifying that POSA would not have “necessarily even gone to Hickey
`
`in the first place . . . . They would have gone to the existing clinical data, which
`
`was overwhelming”); see also id. at 295:7-10 (“So that’s why the POSA relies on
`
`clinical information and doesn’t rely on tenuous arguments about animal
`
`experiments that I certainly did not bring into the proceedings.”). Dr. Green’s
`
`testimony is entirely consistent with the opinions set forth in his reply evidence
`
`(Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 43-45, 49-71).
`
`Response 2-4: Yeda’s conclusion that the quoted “testimony” is “relevant” for the
`
`“same reasons identified above in ¶ 1” is incorrect and not supported by the cited
`
`testimony. For example, the quoted testimony in OOCE 2 is of Yeda’s attorney
`
`reading into the record a sentence from an article. Ex. 1142 at 225:8-15. Dr. Green
`
`was then asked, “Do you see that?” and “Did I read that correctly, other than with
`
`that one correction?” Dr. Green answered, “Yes.” Id. at 225:16-23. This is not
`
`“testimony” that can be attributed to Dr. Green. Yeda also omits Dr. Green’s
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`substantive response at Ex. 1142 at 226:3-16. Yeda used the same uninformative
`
`technique in Observations 3-4 as in Observation 1.4
`
`Response 5: Yeda’s contention that Dr. Green’s “testimony” regarding T cells
`
`contradicts his opinion that “a POSA would believe GA-specific T-cells would
`
`persist for beyond three days by equating cross recognition of MBP with MBP
`
`specificity” mischaracterizes the record and is not supported by the cited
`
`testimony. The quoted testimony is of Yeda’s attorney reading into the record a
`
`sentence from an article and asking, “And the next sentence says . . . right?”; Dr.
`
`Green answered, “Yes.” Ex. 1142 at 280:7-11. No follow-up question was asked
`
`and Dr. Green’s opinion was not solicited. There is no evidence of record that the
`
`POSA would find a distinction between proliferation and cytokine secretion to be
`
`relevant when comparing GA-specific T cells with MBP-specific T cells; and Dr.
`
`Green did not testify to one. Dr. Green’s testimony in fact refuted a POSA would
`
`draw such a distinction: “At a theoretical level, yes. Is that what a person who’s
`
`skilled in the art would look at when they looked at this reference [Hickey] in
`
`thinking about the kinetics of GA-reactive lymphocytes? No.” Id. at 253:15-19.
`
`Moreover, Yeda’s reliance on the quoted sentence from Neuhaus is taken out of
`
`context. Neuhaus states: “Some of the GA-reactive cells cross-react with MBP or
`
`MOG and are therefore stimulated to release anti-inflammatory cytokines . . . and
`
`
`4 Petitioner incorporates its Response to OOCE 1 herein.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`even neurotrophic factors.” Ex. 2065 at 5 (Fig. at 3). Dr. Green’s testimony that
`
`GA-specific T cells persist in the CNS for days is supported by Aharoni 2000 (Ex.
`
`2044) and 2003 (Ex. 1084), and Dr. Ziemssen (Ex. 2009), as is stated in Dr.
`
`Green’s reply declaration. See Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 57-62 (citing, e.g., Ex. 2044 at Abstract,
`
`4; Ex. 1084 at Abstract, 5; Ex. 2009 at 4 (“[s]o it can be concluded that activated
`
`TH2 cells are able to cross the bloodbrain barrier [], accumulate in the CNS and
`
`express in situ anti-inflammatory cytokines”)); Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 52-58 (emphasizing
`
`that if a POSA were to rely on Hickey, which does not discuss GA-specific Th2
`
`cells, the POSA would look to the more relevant activated MBP-specific T cells
`
`that bind to an antigen in the CNS rather than the other activated T cells that do not
`
`bind to antigens in the CNS because GA-specific Th2 cells were known to bind
`
`antigens in the CNS). Fourth, Yeda failed to account for Dr. Green’s testimony
`
`refuting the OOCE’s conclusion (Ex. 1142 at 259:16-260:7; 253:2-8):
`
`[A] person of ordinary skill in the art would look at this and recognize
`that although these were T-cells that have a high affinity for the
`antigen MBP, the whole concept of cross-reactivity and the whole
`concept of bystander suppression would be dependent on the notion
`that there was the potential to interact with other antigens that either
`looked similar or maybe even were identical that came up from--in
`response to GA.
`
`* * *
`There’s no--you can’t make an argument that there’s bystander
`suppression unless you give the capacity for those lymphocytes to
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`encounter or be restimulated once they’ve crossed the CNS by an
`antigen.5
`
`Response 6: Dr. Green objected to answering a question premised on “any
`
`evidence” in the field of immunology, rather than a question directed to GA and its
`
`MOA. Id. at 245:5-9; 245:17-246:7 (“[Y]ou asked me a question about any
`
`evidence. I’m not willing to say anything about a statement about any evidence.
`
`The medical literature is broad and deep. So, again, I think the important thing here
`
`is can I posit opinions specifically on the topics of the proceedings here related to
`
`glatiramer acetate and its mechanism of action. I feel very comfortable there.”).
`
`Yeda’s counsel then changed topics. Id. at 245:17-246:9. Dr. Green’s cited
`
`testimony is not relevant to and does not support OOCE 6.6
`
`Response 7: OOCE 7 omits Dr. Green’s full testimony. See id. at 245:22-246:5;
`
`261:8-14. Dr. Green is eminently qualified to testify as a POSA here. See Ex. 1004
`
`¶¶ 2-12, Ex. A; Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 41-42. The cited testimony is irrelevant as the POSA
`
`definition does not require an expert in immunology, much less in the entire field
`
`of immunology. IPR2015-0063, Paper 13 at 8-9; IPR-00644, Paper 14 at 4-5; IPR-
`
`00830, Paper 8 at 5.
`
`Response 8: There is no evidence that the POSA would find a distinction between
`
`proliferation and cytokine secretion to be relevant. Further, this OOCE omits Dr.
`
`5 Petitioner incorporates its Response to OOCEs 1, 6 and 8-10 herein.
`
`6 Petitioner incorporates its Response to OOCEs 1, 5 and 8-10 herein.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Green’s testimony immediately preceding: “Q: Well, it could be that the cells are
`
`stimulated to produce cytokines by a cross-reactive antigen but not to proliferate,
`
`correct? A: At a theoretical level, yes. Is that what a person who’s skilled in the art
`
`would look at when they looked at this reference in thinking about the kinetics of
`
`GA-reactive lymphocytes? No.” Ex. 1142 at 253:10-19.7
`
`Response 9: The cited text is irrelevant and the conclusions not supported by the
`
`cited testimony. Dr. Green testified that the POSA would not interpret Hickey the
`
`same way Yeda does. See id. at 259:22-260:7. Hickey was brought into the
`
`proceedings by Dr. Ziemssen, who in doing so made no distinctions between “Th2
`
`cells (that [purportedly] cross-react)” and “Th2 cells (that [purportedly]
`
`specifically react).” Thus, there is no record citation to support that the POSA
`
`would make the distinction drawn in this OOCE. Further, in rebutting Dr.
`
`Ziemssen’s introduction of Hickey, Dr. Green testified that the POSA would first
`
`look to the clinical evidence and if a POSA were to look to Hickey, Hickey teaches
`
`that activated T-cells that bind MBP persist for beyond three days. Id. at 272:1-10,
`
`272:24-274:4. This is consistent with Dr. Green’s opinion that if a POSA were to
`
`rely on Hickey, which does not discuss GA-specific Th2 cells, the POSA would
`
`look to the more relevant activated MBP-specific T cells that bind to an antigen in
`
`the CNS rather than the other activated T cells that do not bind to antigens in the
`
`
`7 Petitioner incorporates its Response to OOCEs 1, 5, 6 and 9 herein.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CNS.8 See Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 52-58.
`
`Response 10: In this OOCE, Yeda argues that “a POSA would have no
`
`mechanistic . . . basis upon which to form a reasonable expectation regarding
`
`whether GA would maintain its efficacy when used on a three times per week
`
`dosing regimen.” In general, Petitioners agree—the available clinical data supports
`
`a three times weekly dosing regimen, and nothing related to GA’s still-unknown
`
`MOA teaches otherwise. A POSA would therefore rely on the clinical data and
`
`discard unproven MOA theories. See Ex. 1142 at 293:2-3 (MOA data would be “of
`
`limited importance”); id. at 295:7-10 (“[T]hat’s why the POSA relies on clinical
`
`information and doesn’t rely on tenuous arguments about animal experiments[.]”);
`
`Ex. 1085 at ¶ 43-44, 49.
`
`Response 11: Dr. Green refers to GLACIER being unblinded as a flaw because
`
`GLACIER measured a purely subjective endpoint, so that failing to blind the study
`
`introduced sufficient bias so that its results “are by no means unimpeachable.” Id.
`
`at 342:8-9; see Ex. 1085 ¶¶ 84-89; Ex. 1065 at 180:23-182:22. By contrast,
`
`Flechter examined inter alia relapse rate. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 65-66. Yeda’s attempt to
`
`draw parallels between GLACIER and Flechter is also not supported by the record.
`
`Dr. Ziemssen’s opinion that no “firm conclusions” can be drawn “concerning the
`
`relative efficacy of alternate-day vs. daily administration” is irrelevant—Petitioner
`
`
`8 Petitioner incorporates this Response into its Response to OOCEs 8-10.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`must only show a reasonable expectation that the claimed regimen is efficacious.
`
`Finally, Dr. Green testified that Khan 2008 (Ex. 1010) and Caon (Ex. 1011)
`
`corroborate Flechter 2002A’s results with a rater-blinded study. See Ex. 1085 ¶32.
`
`Response 12-14: Whether a POSA would have reasonably expected a once-per-
`
`week regimen to succeed is irrelevant—the patents at issue do not cover once-
`
`weekly dosing. In testimony omitted by Yeda, Dr. Green explained that the
`
`average total weekly dose informs the dose a POSA would choose, while the prior
`
`art clinical evidence informs the dosing regimens likely to be safe and effective.
`
`Ex. 1142 at 302:24-303:10, 309:14-311:20. That is, a POSA would have a
`
`reasonable expectation of success with a 40 mg dose TIW, in part because the
`
`average total weekly dose (120 mg) falls within a known range of likely
`
`efficacious doses (70 mg to 280 mg) and is similar to that of the FDA-approved 20
`
`mg daily regimen (140 mg). Id. Similarly, a POSA would have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success that a three-times-per-week dosing regimen would be
`
`successful in view of (1) substantial pre-2009 clinical evidence for nearly identical
`
`every other day regimen (Ex. 1008, 1010, 1011), and (2) patient preference for a
`
`convenient TIW regimen (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 54-59, 1085 ¶¶ 23-28, 2129 ¶¶ 37-39). Ex.
`
`1142 at 299:5-19, 302:24-303:10, 305:9-22, 312:17-313:15, 403:14-404:4. Yeda’s
`
`attempt to analogize once weekly dosing to thrice weekly dosing is misleading.
`
`Response 15, 17: Whether a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`success with a 70 mg regimen administered twice weekly is irrelevant to the
`
`patents at issue. A twice weekly regimen includes both 72-hour and 96-hour gaps
`
`between doses, whereas a TIW regimen is identical to prior art every other day
`
`dosing, save one less injection every two weeks—a single 72-hour gap. Dr. Green
`
`did not testify that “a 140 mg total weekly dose of GA, administered twice weekly
`
`as 70 mg injections would not have had a reasonable expectation of success.”
`
`Rather, Dr. Green explained that the prior art gives an indication that twice weekly
`
`dosing might work. Id. at 322:4-8. Dr. Green also testified that Flechter 2002A
`
`supports a 96-hour gap between doses. Id. at 323:7-12. Dr. Green testified that a
`
`POSA would know that patients on Copaxone miss doses. Id. at 324:7-325:13. A
`
`POSA would read the absence of compliance information in Flechter 2002A to
`
`mean that patients missed doses. Id. A POSA would know that patients in Flechter
`
`2002A often had 96-hour “time gaps” between doses. Id. at 322:25-323:12.
`
`Response 16: Dr. Green has not relied upon any alleged MOA for GA as the basis
`
`of his opinion. See Response to OOCE 1. In his declaration, Dr. Green explained:
`
`In general, claims about a therapeutic agent’s purported mechanism of
`action derived from in vitro models and/or animal data are subordinate
`to patient-derived, real-world clinical data. In 2009, a POSA
`considering the uncertainty surrounding GA’s mechanism of action
`and the available clinical data would have recognized the clinical data
`to be the most relevant information.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1085 ¶ 43. Dr. Green stated that “[i]f anything, the uncertainty surrounding
`
`GA’s [MOA] would motivate a POSA to investigate dosing regimens with existing
`
`and even preliminary clinical support.” Id. ¶ 44. Yeda takes Dr. Green’s comments
`
`out of context. Dr. Green referred to the fact that immunological processes
`
`“occur[] over the period of time, over the period of days” when asked about a 96-
`
`hour gap between doses. Ex. 1142 at 327:23-24. A 96-hour gap between doses is
`
`not at issue here. Dr. Green cautioned Yeda at the time that “I think you’re
`
`mischaracterizing what I’m saying.” Id. at 327:19-20. In fact, Dr. Green concluded
`
`that discussion by underlining that the clinical data is paramount (id. at 332:2-11):
`
`I think we’ve established that we don’t know which of these are
`driving the clinical effect of the drug. That’s why we are going to
`make assessments based on a combination of the clinical data with our
`understanding of the biological processes that underlie the mechanism
`of action of the drug. And it’s that thinking about the data in that way
`that guides one towards an understanding of the likely dosing
`regimens that are going to work.
`
`Response 18: Dr. Green testified that the PK data provided to FDA to support
`
`Copaxone’s approval was not an “absolutely necessary part of [his] argument” but
`
`that “it supports the opinion that [he has].” Ex. 1142 at 335:21-25. Yeda omits the
`
`prior art that relies on the SBOA’s PK data. See Ex. 1085 ¶ 48 n.2; Ex. 1022 at 2.
`
`Dr. Ziemssen’s publication relied on Lobel (Ex. 1022) and the Teva radiolabeled
`
`PK data for the PK properties of GA. Ex. 2021 at 4 n.51.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Response 19: Yeda omits Dr. Green’s testimony that a POSA must account for
`
`GA acting systemically. Ex. 1142 at 337:24-338:9. Yeda omits that the Copaxone
`
`label states: “Some fraction of the injected material . . . may enter the systemic
`
`circulation intact.” Ex. 1047 at 1. Yeda omits that Dr. Gristwood testified that “[a]
`
`responsible pharmaceutical company would not leave information known to be
`
`incorrect [in] prescribing information.” Ex. 2145 at 65:19-24.
`
`Response 20: In his reply declaration (Ex. 1085 ¶ 81), Dr. Green explains his
`
`testimony, which he reiterated at deposition (Ex. 1142, 343:7-345:25). Yeda omits
`
`Dr. Green’s discussion of the teachings of Flechter 2002A. E.g., Ex. 1004 at 65-66.
`
`Response 21: Dr. Green did not testify that the dropout rate was a “weakness” in
`
`Flechter. Ex. 1142 at 350:15-351:14. Dr. Green explained that the lower dropout
`
`rate for patients on alternate day dosing suggests that patients tolerated alternate
`
`day dosing better than daily dosing. Id. at 352:18-353. Dr. Green explained that it
`
`is the skilled artisan’s job to interpret data as presented. Id. at 351:1-14.
`
`Response 22: Dr. Green was asked generally whether “[i]n 2001 there was no way
`
`to predict a pharmacodynamics outcome from a [PK] measurement?” Id. at 358:6-
`
`8. The beginning of Dr. Green’s response, omitted by Yeda, shows that Dr. Green
`
`was explaining that a POSA could theorize about how PK data might “predict” a
`
`pharmacodynamics outcome, not that a POSA would rely on a MOA theory. Id. at
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`358:11-21. As explained in responses to OOCE 1 and16, Dr. Green has not relied
`
`upon any alleged MOA for GA as the basis for any opinion in this case.
`
`Response 23: Yeda’s assertion that its quotation is Dr. Green’s testimony is false.
`
`Yeda’s OOCE is an improper reply as the SBOA (Ex. 1007) was a Petition exhibit.
`
`Yeda was obligated to address its criticisms of Ex. 1007 in its Response. No
`
`substantive questions were asked as to this passage. See Ex. 1142 at 372:18-374:9.
`
`Response 24: Yeda states the question as testimony. Dr. Green’s answer confirms
`
`that Ex. 2054 does not contain information necessary to determine whether the
`
`conclusion suggested in the question could be reached. Id. at 376:2-4.
`
`Response 25: Yeda omits Dr. Green’s answer explaining that at no time have
`
`physicians used antihistamines to address Copaxone’s ISRs, nor has Teva
`
`encouraged the use of antihistamines. Id. at 380:10-381:18. This refutes the
`
`unsupported suggestion that GA’s ISRs are related to histamine release.
`
`Response 26: Dr. Green did not testify that Ex. 1069 “reported that anti-histamines
`
`were modestly effective.” Rather, in his answer, Dr. Green explained “why the
`
`authors conclude antihistamine use as a strategy to reduce local injection site
`
`reactions in patients on GA therapy cannot be recommended.” Id. at 282:4-20.
`
`Response 27: The IMS data referenced is not of record and is not admissible for
`
`any purpose. 37 C.F.R. 42.61(a). Dr. Hay cannot be criticized for Yeda’s decision
`
`not to file evidence. Dr. Hay’s criticisms of the IMS data do not require analysis of
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`this particular data set. Dr. Hay stated (Ex. 1099 ¶¶ 40-41) that IMS admits it fails
`
`to capture sales of specialty products (Ex. 1111, 1112), which is corroborated in
`
`Ex. 1113. IMS data is not relevant to the issue of commercial success as it does not
`
`reflect actual revenue to Yeda. Ex. 1099 ¶¶ 55, 57-58, 62; Ex. 2148 at 21:13-22:15.
`
`Response 28: Glatopa’s co-pay is irrelevant to the issue of whether sales of
`
`Copaxone 40 mg were driven by its more favorable pricing and co-pay support.
`
`Response 29: Dr. Hay had no burden to demonstrate the degree to which
`
`Copaxone 40 mg’s more favorable pricing and co-pay support drove sales. Dr.
`
`Grabowski’s declaration was unsupported by record evidence and failed to address
`
`the impact of Copaxone 40 mg’s more favorable pricing.
`
`Response 30: Yeda appears to argue that because Copaxone 40 mg is administered
`
`three times per week, there is a nexus to the patents in suit. This argument is
`
`legally incorrect. If commercial success is due to an unclaimed feature of a
`
`product, or if that feature was known in the art, the commercial success is not
`
`relevant. See, e.g., Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F. 3d 1299, 1312 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006); see also Ex. 1141 at 57:1-5, 58:7-13.
`
`Response 31-32: Both OOCEs relate to questions concerning an article that is not
`
`of record. Yeda omits Dr. Hay’s testimony that the quotations are taken out of the
`
`context of the article (Ex. 1141 at 59:11-14, 17) and that any statements in the
`
`article were qualified within the article (id. at 59:23-25, 60:8-14). Yeda omits Dr.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Hay’s testimony that Copaxone 40 mg is priced lower than the 20 mg product,
`
`refuting the suggestion that Copaxone 40 mg does not compete on price.
`
`Response 33: Dr. Hay reviewed publicly available comparative pricing of
`
`Copaxone 20 mg and 40 mg, including Missouri Medicaid pricing, in the absence
`
`of pricing data in Yeda’s Response. Id. at 66:13-22. Dr. Hay testified that there is
`
`no true pricing data available in the record of this proceeding, which is a fatal flaw
`
`in Yeda’s commercial success theory. Id. at 66:13-22, 67:1-18.
`
`Response 34: Yeda omits portions of Dr. Hay’s answer. Dr. Hay testified as to the
`
`substantial evidence establishing that Copaxone 40 mg is priced higher than
`
`Glatopa. Id. at 71:3-71:23; Ex. 1099 ¶¶ 55-56; Ex. 1104, 1122, 1124.
`
`Response 35: The quoted testimony is not the witness’s, but is the question of
`
`Yeda’s attorney reading from a document not of record. Ex. 1141 at 96:10-12,
`
`97:14-16; see Response at p. 1, supra. Yeda omits the witness’s answer.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Dated: April 22, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`Reg. No. 52,354
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 13th St., NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6206
`E-mail: bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioners’ Response to
`
`Yeda’s Observation on Reply was served electronically via email as follows:
`
`Patent Owners:
`
`Elizabeth Holland
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`eholland@goodwinprocter.com
`
`William James
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`wjames@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Eleanor Yost
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`eyost@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Petitioner Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC:
`
`
`Nicholas Mitrokostas
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`nmitrokostas@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Daryl Wiesen
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`dwiesen@goodwinprocter.com
`
`John Bennett
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`jbennett@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Vincent L. Capuano
`Duane Morris LLC
`VCapuano@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher S. Kroon
`Duane Morris LLC
`CSKroon@duanemorris.com
`
`
`Dated: April 22, 2016
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`
`1
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
