`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-00643 (Patent 8,232,250 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00644 (Patent 8,399,413 B2)
`Case IPR2015-00830 (Patent 8,969,302 B2)1,2
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`
`caption.
`
`2 Cases IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980, and IPR2015-01981 have been joined
`
`with IPR2015-00643, IPR2015-00644, and IPR2015-00830, respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Khan 2009 (Exs. 1068 And 1089) Is Not Prior Art And Should Be
`Excluded
`
`Petitioners admit the Khan 2009 abstracts (Exs. 1068 And 1089) are not
`
`prior art. As such, they cannot be relied upon to show the state of the art as of the
`
`priority date as Petitioners suggest. Petitioners have made no showing that any of
`
`the information contained in the Khan 2009 abstracts would have been available to
`
`a POSA before the priority date. Therefore, the abstracts are irrelevant to the
`
`obviousness inquiry in this case as they are neither prior art nor evidence of the
`
`“state of the art” available to a POSA in 2009.
`
`Petitioners’ reliance on Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc. is misplaced. In
`
`Syntex, the inventors authored a Pharmaceutical Report, published five days after
`
`the priority date, that clearly states that octoxynol 40 was a well-known ingredient
`
`in pharmaceutical products. 407 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal
`
`Circuit determined that the District Court erred by concluding that octoxynol 40
`
`was not used in pharmaceuticals prior to its use in the patented invention. Id.
`
`Syntex is distinguishable for at least 2 reasons. Here, unlike the Pharmaceutical
`
`Report in Syntex, the Khan 2009 abstracts were not authored by the inventors and
`
`make no statements about what was “well-known” in the art prior to the filing of
`
`the patent. In fact, the Khan 2009 abstracts describe a clinical trial that had yet to
`
`be presented to the field, and the Khan 2009 abstracts make no comments about the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`state of the art before the priority date. Therefore, the Board should exclude the
`
`Khan 2009 abstracts (Exs. 1068 And 1089).
`
`II. The Board Should Exclude Teva’s Shared Solutions Website (Ex. 1086)
`
`Once again, Petitioners’ admission that the Shared Solutions website is dated
`
`after the priority date should end the inquiry as the website is not prior art. See
`
`Paper 75 [Petitioners’ Opposition] at p. 6. Instead, Petitioners state that the Board
`
`should consider the website because it “corroborate[s] Dr. Green’s testimony.” Id.
`
`Yet Petitioners do not even attempt to explain how information from 2016 can
`
`legitimately corroborate Dr. Green’s opinion about the state of the art in 2009.
`
`Instead, Petitioners argue that the Board can rely on this after-the-fact information
`
`by claiming it is Yeda’s burden to show that no “intervening clinical trial changed
`
`the known state of the art” between 2009 and 2016. Id. at p. 6, n. 4. This kind of
`
`post-hoc evidence is exactly the type of evidence the Board typically excludes in
`
`order to prevent the type of hindsight analysis the Petitioners have offered. It is
`
`Petitioners’ burden, not Yeda’s, to establish the state of the art as of the priority
`
`date with information available to a POSA at the time of the priority date.
`
`Therefore, the Board should exclude the Shared Solutions website.
`
`III. The Board Should Exclude The Lebano Article (Ex. 1098)
`
`Petitioners also improperly rely on the post-priority date 2012 Lebano
`
`Article as purported evidence of the state of the prior art in 2009. Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`incorrectly point to a passage in the Lebano Article which states “gray matter
`
`lesions are still difficult to measure and not discernable using traditional MRI” in
`
`order to argue that detecting gray matter lesions with MRI was “expensive and
`
`difficult to deploy in a multicenter clinical trial” as of the priority date. Id. at p. 7-
`
`8. But there is nothing in this statement pertinent to the state of the art in 2009
`
`and, in fact, that gray matter lesions were “difficult” to measure is irrelevant to
`
`whether or not a POSA would expect the claimed invention to reduce gray matter
`
`lesions. Therefore, the Lebano Article is irrelevant and should be excluded.
`
`IV. The Wolinsky Transcript (Ex. 1140) is Irrelevant And Should Be
`Excluded
`
`The Wolinsky Transcript was never cited in any of Petitioners’ filings in this
`
`proceeding or cited by any of Petitioners’ experts and, therefore, is not of record.
`
`Petitioners’ attempt to introduce the exhibit through improper re-direct
`
`examination of its own witness during the reply round of depositions is in flagrant
`
`disregard of the Board’s rules regarding the supplementation of evidence. 3 See 37
`
`
`3 Petitioners’ argument that Yeda waived its objections under 37 CFR § 42.123 is
`
`baseless. Counsel for Yeda specifically states that “I want to object to this
`
`document being offered. It's not part of the record in this proceeding. So I just
`
`object to any testimony on the document.” This objection clearly includes an
`
`objection under 37 CFR § 42.123.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CFR § 42.123(b). Rather than seek leave to move to supplement the record, as was
`
`required4, Petitioners attempted to have Dr. Green ostensibly read portions of the
`
`Wolinsky Transcript into the record at his deposition despite objections made by
`
`Yeda’s counsel that it was improper to do so.5 Dr. Green even admitted that he had
`
`not seen the Wolinsky Transcript until the week before his deposition and that it
`
`played no part in the opinions that he set forth in this IPR. (Ex. 1142, 404:10-12,
`
`404: 22-24). The Wolinsky Transcript is also irrelevant to these proceedings
`
`because it is not prior art and therefore cannot be the basis of any finding by the
`
`Board. The prescribing practices and rationales of a single physician are irrelevant
`
`if those practices were not known and available to a POSA as of the priority date.
`
`
`4 Petitioners’ argument that Yeda improperly maintained confidentiality over the
`
`Wolinsky Transcript is similarly baseless. In district court litigation, it is regular
`
`practice, as Petitioners’ themselves have done, to mark an entire deposition
`
`transcript confidential to protect client confidential information, and there was no
`
`undue delay in addressing Petitioners’ request in the district court litigation.
`
`5 Yeda objected to the Wolinsky Transcript at Dr. Green’s deposition as improper
`
`IPR evidence and as outside the scope of Dr. Green’s direct examination. (Ex.
`
`1142, 396:3-10, 397:1-10, 398:3-4, 398:10, 399:5-8, 398:22-23).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`As Petitioners have not made any showing on this issue, the Wolinsky Transcript,
`
`which is not of record, is irrelevant and should be excluded.
`
`V.
`
`Patent Owner Did Not Neglect Its Duty Of Candor To The Board
`
`Petitioners allege that Yeda violated its duty of candor by not disclosing the
`
`Wolinsky Transcript to the Board. This allegation is baseless. A party has an
`
`obligation to serve “relevant information that is inconsistent with a position
`
`advanced by the party during the proceeding.” 37 C.F.R § 42.51(b)(1)(iii). First,
`
`as discussed above, the Wolinsky Transcript is irrelevant to the current
`
`proceedings. Second, Dr. Wolinsky’s testimony is not inconsistent with positions
`
`taken by Yeda in this proceeding. Yeda has consistently maintained that a POSA
`
`would not have been motivated to develop a 40 mg, three times per week dosing
`
`regimen for GA based on the teaching of the prior art as a whole—including prior
`
`art studies using 20 mg GA every other day. None of Dr. Wolinsky’s fact
`
`testimony about his own private prescribing practices with 20 mg GA is relevant or
`
`inconsistent with these arguments.
`
`Dated: April 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Elizabeth J. Holland/
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Registration No. 47,657
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10019-1405
`Tel: 212-813-8800
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that I caused PATENT OWNER’S
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE to be
`
`served electronically via e-mail on April 28, 2016 on the following:
`
`Jeffrey W. Guise
`
`jguise@wsgr.com
`
`Brandon M. White
`
`BMWhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Shannon Bloodworth
`
`sbloodworth@perkinscoie.com
`
`David Anstaett
`
`DAnstaett@perkinscoie.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Vince Capuano
`
`vcapuano@duanemorris.com
`
`Christopher Kroon
`
`CSKroon@duanemorris.com
`
`/Brian T. Drummond/
`Brian T. Drummond
`
`Dated:
`
`April 28, 2016