`
`
`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’ OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER GRANTING
`REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Case Nos. IPR2015-01976, IPR2015-01980 and IPR2015-01981 have been
`
`joined with these proceedings.
`
`2 Word-for-word identical Objections are being filed in each proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Slides 4, 9 & 55: Patent Owner has not argued in its Response or declarations that
`
`earlier “failed attempts,” including by attempting an oral product and a non-GA
`
`product, TV-5010, support a finding of non-obviousness.
`
`Slides 31 & 78: Ex. 2076 is not cited in the Response or supporting declarations,
`
`and Ex. 2021 is not cited by Patent Owner in its Response or supporting
`
`declarations for the proposition on this slide.
`
`Slide 39: This slide is improperly argumentative and not supported by the record
`
`in arguing, without record support, that it is “undisputed” that a POSA would not
`
`look to Flechter to draw efficacy comparisons.
`
`Slide 64: This slide is misleading and improperly argumentative, and the use of
`
`“contradicted” in the title is misleading as the slide removes Dr. Peroutka’s
`
`testimony from its context.
`
`Slides 85, 86 & 95: These slides improperly present new arguments.
`
`Slide 113: This slide presents new argument Patent Owner did not make in its
`
`Response or expert declarations and is misleading and argumentative to the extent
`
`the title suggests the testimony relates to the POSA’s understanding.
`
`By making the objections above, Petitioners do not agree that the remainder
`
`of Patent Owner’s demonstratives are unobjectionable.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Dated: May 10, 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PETITIONERS’
`OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`PURSUANT TO THE ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR ORAL
`ARGUMENT 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:
`
`
`Vincent L. Capuano
`Duane Morris LLC
`VCapuano@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`Dated: May 10, 2016
`
`Nicholas Mitrokostas
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`nmitrokostas@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Daryl Wiesen
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`dwiesen@goodwinprocter.com
`
`John Bennett
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`jbennett@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Christopher S. Kroon
`Duane Morris LLC
`CSKroon@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc
`
`
`
`1