`Filed: April 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INNOPHARMA LICENSING, INC., INNOPHARMA LICENSING LLC,
`INNOPHARMA INC., INNOPHARMA LLC,
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and MYLAN INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
` SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Dr. Laskar Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Organic or
`Medicinal Chemistry, and Those Opinions Should Thus Be Excluded .......... 1
`
`Dr. Laskar’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits Exceed the
`Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), Lack
`Relevance Under FRE 402 and Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403 ................... 3
`
`III. Dr. Laskar’s Testimony on Redirect After Consultation with
`Petitioner’s Counsel Should Be Excluded ....................................................... 5
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`Dr. Laskar candidly conceded on cross examination that he is not an expert
`
`in medicinal or organic chemistry, including antioxidant chemistry. (EX2272 at
`
`20:17-21:5.) Dr. Laskar further conceded that the formulations of the ’431 patent
`
`(EX1001) as well as the formulations of Yasueda (EX1012) that contain tyloxapol
`
`“do not contain any traditional antioxidant or compound that functions in an
`
`antioxidant capacity.” (EX2272 at 68:20-69:7.) Dr. Laskar’s candid concessions
`
`eviscerate his credibility and render all of his testimony regarding chemistry issues,
`
`including his unsupported assertions that tyloxapol allegedly is an antioxidant in
`
`the ophthalmic formulations at issue, irrelevant as a matter of law. The Board
`
`accordingly should grant Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.
`
`I. Dr. Laskar Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Organic or Medicinal
`Chemistry, and Those Opinions Should Thus Be Excluded
`
`Dr. Laskar readily admits that he is not an expert in medicinal or organic
`
`chemistry, including antioxidant chemistry. (EX2272, 20:17-21:5.) This should
`
`end the inquiry. Yet Dr. Laskar nonetheless attempts to testify about matters
`
`within these highly complex, specialized chemistry fields in which he admits he is
`
`not an expert. The Board thus should exclude Dr. Laskar’s opinions in these areas.
`
`Petitioner half-heartedly attempts to salvage Dr. Laskar’s testimony by
`
`relying on dicta in Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008), and arguing that Dr. Laskar is a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`pharmaceutical sciences. This misses the point entirely. Dr. Laskar admittedly has
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`no qualifications in the pertinent chemical arts, including antioxidant chemistry,
`
`and the holding of Sundance makes clear that his testimony on these issues is thus
`
`inadmissible as a matter of law. Id. at 1364 (reversing district court and excluding
`
`unqualified expert testimony, noting “[n]or may a witness not qualified in the
`
`pertinent art testify as an expert on obviousness, or any of the underlying technical
`
`questions, such as the nature of the claimed invention, what a prior art reference
`
`discloses, or whether the asserted claims read on the prior art reference”).
`
`While the Board has recognized that it “need not find a complete overlap”
`
`between an expert’s qualifications and the field of endeavor, CaptionCall, LLC v.
`
`Ultratech, Inc., IPR2013-00550, Paper 57 at 11, the Federal Circuit in Sundance
`
`makes clear that an expert may not offer an opinion in an area in which the expert
`
`lacks qualification. Petitioner’s reliance on Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Intellectual
`
`Ventures I, LLC, CBM2015-00004, Paper 33, is likewise misplaced, because in
`
`that case, an expert in electrical engineering having experience in computer
`
`programming was found to “align sufficiently” with claims directed to software for
`
`use on a user station. Id. at 10. Dr. Laskar, in contrast, admittedly has no expertise
`
`in medicinal or organic chemistry, including the antioxidant chemistry issues about
`
`which he opines. Accordingly, Dr. Laskar’s opinions involving medicinal and
`
`organic chemistry, including antioxidant chemistry, should be excluded.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`
`II. Dr. Laskar’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits Exceed the
`Proper Scope of Petitioner’s Reply Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), Lack
`Relevance Under FRE 402 and Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403
`Petitioner spends a full eight pages of its opposition inaccurately contending
`
`that Dr. Laskar’s opinions should be admitted because they allegedly establish that
`
`tyloxapol is an antioxidant in ophthalmic formulations. Petitioner is entirely
`
`wrong. Notwithstanding that Dr. Laskar admittedly has no expertise to offer these
`
`new opinions, Dr. Laskar candidly conceded on cross examination that these new
`
`opinions are not even accurate. Indeed, Dr. Laskar admitted that the formulations
`
`of the ’431 patent (EX1001) as well as the formulations of Yasueda (EX1012) that
`
`contain tyloxapol “do not contain any traditional antioxidant or compound that
`
`functions in an antioxidant capacity.” (EX2272 at 68:20-69:7 (emphasis added).)
`
`Dr. Laskar’s candid concession wholly undermines his credibility and establishes
`
`the irrelevance—and thus inadmissibility—of his opinions to the contrary.
`
`Faced with this fatal concession, Petitioner does not deny that neither its
`
`petition nor Dr. Laskar’s opening declaration mentions any alleged antioxidant
`
`properties of tyloxapol or any alleged motivation to substitute tyloxapol for
`
`polysorbate 80 in Ogawa (EX1004) based on any purported antioxidant properties.
`
`Rather, Petitioner wholly mischaracterizes Dr. Laskar’s first cross examination, in
`
`which Dr. Laskar only referred to BHT and EDTA as antioxidants and never once
`
`referred to tyloxapol as an antioxidant. (EX2114 at 157:2-22, 160:18-162:20.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`Petitioner repeatedly disparages Dr. Davies, suggesting that he allegedly
`
`should have “looked up” whether tyloxapol is an antioxidant. Paper 74 at 7, 11.
`
`Dr. Davies did just that, and Dr. Davies confirmed that tyloxapol does not have
`
`any antioxidant properties in ophthalmic formulations such as those of the ’431
`
`patent, distinguishing the new references on which Dr. Laskar relies. (EX2272 at
`
`134:15-139:19.) Tellingly, Dr. Laskar never asked Petitioner’s counsel if Dr.
`
`Davies had expressed any such opinions contradicting Dr. Laskar’s unsupported
`
`opinions regarding the oxidation properties of tyloxapol. (Id. at 139:14-19.)
`
`Petitioner further blatantly mischaracterizes the prior art, inaccurately stating
`
`that the art allegedly “teaches that tyloxapol falls in the class of alkylphenol
`
`compounds” of Doi (EX2025). Paper 66 at 6. Nothing could be further from the
`
`truth. Indeed, Dr. Laskar candidly concedes that the alkylphenol compounds of
`
`Doi contain an –OH group directly attached to their phenyl ring—hence their
`
`“phenol” designation—whereas tyloxapol does not. (EX2272 at 47:2-4, 91:9-15.)
`
`And Dr. Laskar freely admits that “tyloxapol is not included as an excipient in any
`
`of the example formulations” of Doi (id. at 90:13-19), further underscoring the
`
`unreliability and thus inadmissibility of his baseless opinions to the contrary.
`
`Petitioner additionally contends that Dr. Laskar merely replies to Patent
`
`Owner’s responsive arguments that a POSA would know that bromfenac degrades
`
`by oxidative degradation. Paper No. 74 at 8. Petitioner completely ignores that
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`Patent Owner moves to exclude Dr. Laskar’s new antioxidant argument and
`
`evidence precisely because Petitioner never provided in its petition or in Dr.
`
`Laskar’s initial declaration any motivation why a POSA would substitute tyloxapol
`
`for polysorbate 80 in Ogawa based on any alleged antioxidant properties. This
`
`new argument on motivation, which is a necessary element of Petitioner’s case-in-
`
`chief, accordingly is an improper reply argument and should be excluded.
`
`III. Dr. Laskar’s Testimony on Redirect After Consultation with
`Petitioner’s Counsel Should Be Excluded
`
`
`
`Patent Owner does not move to exclude Dr. Laskar’s testimony on redirect
`
`because of coaching by Petitioner’s counsel, nor does Patent Owner “implicit[ly]
`
`suggest[]”, Paper 74 at 13, that such coaching may have occurred. Rather, Patent
`
`Owner’s argument is that Dr. Laskar was non-responsive and inconsistent during
`
`cross-examination, yet freely talkative on redirect after the break. As a result, Dr.
`
`Laskar’s redirect testimony should be excluded as prejudicial under FRE 403.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons discussed herein and in Patent Owner’s opening brief, Patent
`
`Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant its motion to exclude.
`
`By: /Bryan C. Diner/
`Bryan C. Diner, Lead Counsel
`Registration No. 32,409
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Date: April 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00902 (Patent 8,669,290 B2)
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`
`
`OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served on April 11, 2016, via
`
`email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Jitendra Malik, Ph.D
`Jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton, Ph.D.
`Bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`Lance.soderstrom@alson.com
`
`Hitetada James Abe
`James.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph M. Janusz
`Joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`
`
`Dated: April 11, 2016
`
`
`
`6