throbber
Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`Patent No. 8,399,413
`____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.62
`TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1), Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) objects to the admissibility of the following exhibits filed by Patent
`
`Owner Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd.
`
`In this paper, a reference to “FRE” means the Federal Rules of Evidence, a
`
`reference to “CFR” means the Code of Federal Regulations, and “’413 patent”
`
`means U.S. Patent No. 8,399,413. All objections under FRE 802 (hearsay) apply
`
`to the extent Patent Owner relies on the exhibits identified in connection with that
`
`objection for the truth of the matter asserted therein.
`
`Exhibit descriptions provided in this table are Patent Owner’s exhibit list and
`
`are used for identification purposes only. The use of the description does not
`
`indicate that Petitioner agrees with the descriptions or characterizations of the
`
`documents.
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Objection
`
`2001
`
`Teva Provides Update on Forte Trial (July 7,
`2008)
`
`A, B, D, F, G, H, I, J,
`N, O, K, T
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`Francisco J. Quintana, et al., Systems Biology
`Approaches for the Study of Multiple
`Sclerosis, J. CELL. MOL. MED. Vol 12, No
`4, 1087-93 (2008)
`
`David J. Virley, Developing Therapeutics for
`the treatment of multiple sclerosis, 2 J. AM.
`SOC. EXP. NEUROTHERAPEUTICS, 638-
`49 (Oct. 2005)
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2004
`
`Manuel A. Friese, The value of animal models
`for drug development in multiple sclerosis,
`129 BRAIN, 1940-52 (2006)
`2005 Copaxone Prescribing Information (January
`2014)
`
`2006
`
`Dvora Teitelbaum et al., Suppression of
`experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by a
`synthetic polypeptide, 1 EUR. J. IMMUNOL.,
`242-248 (Aug. 1971)
`
`2007
`
`Jill Conner, Glatiramer acetate and
`therapeutic peptide vaccines for multiple
`sclerosis,1 J. Autoimmunity and Cell
`Responses 3 (2014)
`2008 Copaxone, Physicians Desk Reference 62ed.
`(2008)
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`Wiebke Schrempf and Tjalf Ziemssen,
`Glatiramer acetate: Mechanisms of action in
`multiple sclerosis, 6 AUTOIMMUN. REV.,
`469–475 (2007)
`
`V.Wee Yong, Differential mechanisms of
`action of interferon-β and glatiramer acetate
`in MS, 59 NEUROLOGY, 802-8 (April 2002)
`
`Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut, Mechanisms of action of
`interferons and glatiramer acetate in multiple
`sclerosis, 58 NEUROLOGY (8 Suppl 4) S3–9
`(2002)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`Objection
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, C, D, E, F, G, H, M,
`N, O
`
`A, B, D, F, G, H, I, K,
`M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, I, M, N,
`O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`Oliver Neuhaus et al., Pharmacokinetics and
`pharmacodynamics of the interferon-betas,
`glatiramer acetate, and mitoxantrone in
`multiple sclerosis, 259 J. NEUROL. SCI., 27–
`37 (2007)
`
`Oded Abramsky et al., Effect Of A Synthetic
`Polypeptide (COP 1) On Patients With
`Multiple Sclerosis and With Acute
`Disseminated Encephalomyelitis. Preliminary
`Report, 31 J. NEUROL. SCI., 433-38 (1977)
`
`Murray B. Bornstein et al., Treatment of
`Multiple Sclerosis with a Synthetic
`Polypeptide: Preliminary Results, 105 TRAN.
`AM. NEUROL. ASSOC., 348-50 (1980)
`
`Murray B. Bornstein et al., Multiple Sclerosis:
`Trial of a Synthetic Polypeptide, 11 ANN.
`NEUROL., 317-19 (Mar. 1982)
`
`Murray B. Bornstein et al., A Pilot Trial of
`COP 1 in Exacerbating-Remitting Multiple
`Sclerosis, 13 N. ENGL. J. MED., 408-14
`(Aug. 13, 1987)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`Objection
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, I, M, N,
`O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`Sage Journals,
`http://msj.sagepub.com/content/14/1_suppl.toc
`(Sept. 2008)
`
`A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
`I, K, L, N, O
`
`Massimo Filippi et al., Effects of oral
`glatiramer acetate on clinical and MRI
`monitored disease activity in patients with
`relapsing multiple sclerosis: a multicentre,
`double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled
`study, http://neurology.thelancet.com (Jan. 20,
`2006)
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2019
`
`Yuval Ramot et al., Comparative Long-Term
`Preclinical Safety Evaluation of Two
`Glatiramoid Compounds (Glatiramer Acetate,
`Copaxone1, and TV-5010, Protiramer) in Rats
`and Monkeys, 40 TOXICOL. PATH., 40-54
`(2012)
`2020 U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0161566 A1
`(“Pinchasi”)
`
`2021
`
`Tjalf Ziemssen et al., Risk-Benefit Assessment
`of Glatiramer Acetate in Multiple Sclerosis,
`24 DRUG SAFETY, 13, 979-90 (2001)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`Objection
`
`A, D, F, G, H, K, M, N,
`O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, K, M, N,
`O
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`Teva News Release, Phase III Data Published
`in Annals of Neurology Show That a Higher
`Concentration Dose of Glatiramer Acetate
`Given Three Times a Week Reduced
`Annualized Relapse Rates in the Treatment of
`Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (July
`1, 2013)
`
`Omar Khan et al., Three Times Weekly
`Glatiramer Acetate in Relapsing–Remitting
`Multiple Sclerosis, 73 ANN. NEUROL., 705–
`13 (2013)
`
`A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
`M, N, O, T
`
`A, C, D, E, F, G, H, M,
`N, O
`
`Teva Press Release, Teva Reports First
`Quarter 2015 Results (April 30, 2015)
`
`A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,
`L, M, N, O, T
`
`Kate McKeage, Glatiramer Acetate 40 mg/mL
`in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A
`Review, CNS DRUGS (April 24, 2015)
`
`A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,
`M, N, O
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`Objection
`
`A, D, F, G, H, M, N, O
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`K.P. Johnson et al., Copolymer 1 reduces
`relapse rate and improves disability in
`relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: Results
`of a phase I11 multicenter, double-blind,
`placebo-controlled trial, 45 Neurology, 1268-
`76 (1995)
`
`
`
`2026
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`Objection Key:
`
`A:
`B:
`C:
`
`FRE 802 (hearsay)
`FRE 901 (lacking authentication)
`FRE 402 (relevance) the document is not relevant to any issue in this IPR
`proceeding because the purported date of the document is after the filing
`date of the ’413 patent or the prior art status is not clear
`FRE 402 (relevance) to the extent the document is relied upon for secondary
`considerations of nonobviousness, there is no nexus to the claimed
`compositions and methods
`FRE 403 (confusing, waste of time) the document is not relevant to any
`issue in this IPR proceeding because the purported date of the document is
`after the filing date of the ’413 patent or the prior art status is not clear
`FRE 403 (confusing, waste of time) to the extent the document is relied
`upon for secondary considerations of nonobviousness, there is no nexus to
`the claimed compositions and methods
`FRE 702 (improper expert testimony) expert testimony that relies on the
`document is not based on sufficient facts or data and/or is not the product of
`reliable principles and methods
`FRE 703 (bases of expert opinion) expert testimony that relies on the
`document is unreliable because the document is not of a type reasonably
`relied upon by experts in the field
`FRE 106 (completeness) the document is incomplete and includes only a
`select portion of a larger document that in fairness should be considered
`along with this document
`FRE 701, 702 (improper expert testimony) improper expert testimony by a
`lay witness
`FRE 1001-1003 (best evidence)
`FRE 403, 901 (improper compilation)
`FRE 403 (cumulative)
`FRE 402 (relevance) the document is not relevant to any issue in the IPR
`proceeding
`FRE 403 (confusing, waste of time) the document is not relevant to any
`issue in the IPR proceeding
`No exhibit filed.
`Expert testimony fails to identify with particularity the underlying facts or
`
`D:
`
`E:
`
`F:
`
`G:
`
`H:
`
`I:
`
`J:
`
`K:
`L:
`M:
`N:
`
`O:
`
`P:
`Q:
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`data on which the opinion is based violating 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)
`FRE 602 (lack of personal knowledge)
`FRE 702/703 to the extent that the expert declarant relies on an exhibit
`objected to under grounds G and H, the testimony is (i) not based on
`sufficient facts or data and/or is not the product of reliable principles and
`methods and/or is (ii) is unreliable because the exhibit is not of a type
`reasonably relied upon by experts in the field
`FRE 1006 (improper summary)
`
`
`
`R:
`S:
`
`T:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`Dated: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`Reg. No. 52,354
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: (202) 654-6204
`Facsimile: (202) 654-6211
`Email: bmwhite@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00644
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing “PETITIONER’S
`
`
`
`OBJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 TO EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY
`
`PATENT OWNER” 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
`
`
`Dated: September 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brandon M. White/
`Brandon M. White
`
`Attorney for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket