`
`Entered: May 2, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS IP LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209 B2
`_______________________
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, AND
`SCOTT A. DANIELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION
`TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`I.
`AN EXPERT’S TECHNICAL ANALYSIS CANNOT BE ENTIRELY
`UNTETHERED FROM THE RELEVANT LAW
`Petitioner argues that the Dr. Robert Stone’s expert declaration (Ex. 1002)
`
`was proper because he performed a technical, not legal analysis. Petitioner’s
`
`argument misses the point; Patent Owner argues that the Board should strike Dr.
`Stone’s technical opinions because they are demonstrably untethered to any legal
`
`principles, and in many instances, contradict the relevant laws.
`
`A. Dr. Stone’s Method of Analysis Contained Multiple Errors
`“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention . . . .” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation
`
`omitted). As the Board noted recently “it is not enough to show merely that the
`
`prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a
`
`challenged claim.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Robert Bosch LLC, Case No.
`
`IPR2016-00035, Paper 16 at 23 (April 25, 2016). Instead, obviousness requires
`
`showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have selected and
`combined those prior art elements . . . to yield the claimed invention.” Id. (citing
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).1 “It is elementary that
`the claimed invention must be considered as a whole in deciding the question of
`
`obviousness.” Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158,
`
`164 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis in original).
`
`Petitioner asserts that because Dr. Stone reviewed the claims and “the claims
`
`
`1 All emphases added unless otherwise noted.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`
`put a box around what [he] was looking at,” he did not need to perform a claim by
`
`claim analysis. (Paper 48, Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion at 1-2.) A passing
`
`review of the claims is insufficient where the relevant inquiry is whether “the
`subject matter sought to be patented . . . as a whole would have been obvious” to a
`
`person of skill in the art. Costco Wholesale, IPR2016-00035, Paper 16 at 24-25
`
`(quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Petitioner admits that Dr. Stone did no such
`
`analysis. (See Paper 48 at 2 (“The fact that Dr. Stone did not do a claim-by-claim
`
`analysis . . . .”).)
`
`An obviousness determination also requires analysis of “any differences
`
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art . . . .” Costco Wholesale,
`
`IPR2016-00035, Paper 16 at 13-14 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17–18 (1966)). In making this determination, the question “is not whether the
`
`differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed
`invention as a whole would have been obvious.” Id. at 14 (citing Litton, 755 F.2d
`at 164). Dr. Stone failed to conduct this portion of the Deere test.
`
`Dr. Stone also relied on impermissible hindsight in forming his opinions. A
`
`factfinder must be wary “of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be
`
`cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.” Id. at 15 (quoting KSR, 550
`U.S. at 421). Dr. Stone admitted that his analysis was based only on hindsight: “If
`I were attempting to solve something that's claimed here, would I do that? And the
`
`answer is yes.” (Ex. 2020, Deposition of Dr. Stone, 60:1-3.) Petitioner’s only
`
`argument in response is that Dr. Stone did not start with a primary reference (Paper
`
`48 at 9), which is irrelevant to his admission that he started with the solution and
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`
`worked backwards. (Ex. 2020 at 60:18-22 (“To someone looking at that, would
`they say, ‘Yeah, I would do that.’ Could I do that? Is there anything challenging to
`
`accomplishing that? Yes, I did that analysis in that form.”).)
`
`Dr. Stone may have avoided falling into the hindsight trap if he had
`
`considered the objective evidence of nonobviousness; because Petitioner failed to
`
`instruct him on the nature and import of such evidence, he was unable to do so.
`
`See InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“Objective indicia may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of
`
`nonobviousness in the record.”) (internal quotations marks omitted).
`B.
`Petitioner correctly states that Dr. Stone is not required to opine on “legal
`
`Petitioner’s Cited Case Law Does Not Support Its Position
`
`standards or purely legal matters.” (Paper 48 at 6.) Dr. Stone was not free,
`however, to ignore legal requirements, e.g., avoiding hindsight analysis, that must
`
`cabin the analysis. Dr. Stone thinks that “‘Obvious’ means that a person of skill in
`
`the art would look at that and say ‘Yeah.’” (Ex. 2020 at 57:16-18.) He may not
`opine contrary to established law.
`
`Petitioner cites to a Board decision for the uncontroversial statement that
`
`“expert testimony is not required in every case.” (Paper 48 at 3 (citing Valeo, Inc.
`
`v. Magna Elec., Inc., Case Nos. IPR2014-00227 and IPR2014-00228, Paper 13 at
`
`19 (May 29, 2014) (“[E]xpert testimony is not required in every case”).) However,
`
`this statement was in reference to an anticipation claim; the obviousness grounds in
`that case were supported by an expert declaration. See Valeo, IPR2014-00227,
`
`Paper 13 at 13, 35-37. The other case Petitioner cites, Black Swamp IP, LLC v.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`
`VirnetX Inc., Case No. IPR2016-00167, Paper 12 at 4 (Feb. 4, 2016), was primarily
`a decision to allow joinder to a previously instituted proceeding, which was
`
`supported by an expert declaration and thus procedurally inapposite. See id. at 3.
`
`Petitioner also cites SK Innovation Co., v. Celgard, LLC, Case No. IPR2014-
`
`00679, Paper 58 at 53 (Sept. 25, 2015), to argue: “whether an expert understands
`
`legal standards is not a ground to exclude evidence or testimony.” (Paper 48 at 7.)
`
`Petitioner overstates the Board’s decision, as shown by the very testimony quoted
`by Petitioner: “we are not persuaded, moreover, that any potential deficiencies in
`Dr. Arnold’s understanding of the legal concepts of unpatentability warrant
`
`excluding his testimony entirely.” (Paper 48 at 7.) At best, the holding was that
`the Board was not required to exclude on those grounds, not that it could not
`exclude where (as here) the analysis was contrary to the law.
`
`II. DR. STONE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT FAILED TO
`CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS
`Petitioner claims that Dr. Stone “could not have considered” the evidence
`
`that others did not find the patented safety feature obvious. (Paper 48 at 8 n.2.)
`
`Petitioner’s arguments are demonstrably false. First, the NOMIX device was
`Petitioner’s own inhaled nitric oxide device previously in use in Mexico. Second,
`Dr. Stone could have considered the OptiKINOX as he cited it in his declaration.
`
`(Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. Stone, ¶ 63.) Third, Dr. Stone was aware of his own
`
`work on inhaled nitric oxide devices. The problem was not access, but
`
`understanding the relevance to the obviousness analysis.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`III. PATENT OWNER HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS
`Lacking a substantive argument, Petitioner raises several procedural
`
`arguments that are without merit. First, Petitioner alleges that Patent Owner failed
`
`to object to Dr. Stone’s declaration “within 10 business days of the institution of
`
`trial.” (Paper 48 at 10.) However, the serious defects in the bases for Dr. Stone’s
`
`analysis were not apparent until Dr. Stone’s deposition, and Patent Owner timely
`
`objected in its Patent Owner’s Response. (See, e.g., Paper 30 at 26 (“A third fatal
`
`flaw with regard to Dr. Stone’s proffered testimony is that it ignores an entire and
`
`significant portion of the obviousness inquiry—objective indicia . . . .”).)
`
`Petitioner had a full opportunity to respond to Patent Owner’s objections.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response detailed at least four distinct objections to Dr. Stone’s
`
`testimony in four separate subsections. Petitioner could have addressed these
`
`objections by submitting additional evidence. Dr. Stone could have provided a
`
`supplemental declaration, or Petitioner could have provided supplemental
`
`evidence. Indeed, recognizing the strength of Patent Owner’s arguments,
`
`Petitioner did provide new evidence with its Reply. (Exs. 1021-24.)
`
`Finally, Patent Owner does not seek to exclude Dr. Stone’s deposition
`
`testimony. Rather, Patent Owner’s motion sought to exclude “Dr. Stone’s
`
`opinions . . . as irrelevant and unreliable.” (Paper 44 at 2.) Patent Owner cites to
`
`and references Dr. Stone’s deposition testimony only to demonstrate why the
`
`opinions in Dr. Stone’s declaration should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 2, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00889
`U.S. Patent No. 8,573,209
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that on this 2nd day of May,
`
`2016, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Reply to
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence was
`
`served by electronic mail on Petitioner’s lead and backup counsel at the following
`
`email addresses:
`
`sanjay.murthy@morganlewis.com
`
`mike.abernathy@morganlewis.com
`
`maria.doukas@morganlewis.com
`
`margaux.nair@klgates.com
`
`benjamin.weed@klgates.com
`
`Praxair-Ikaria@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Robert Steinberg/
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144)
`bob.steinberg@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`355 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
`213.485.1234; 213.891.8763 (Fax)