IPR2015-00990; -01093
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`(Patent 7,056,886 B2)1
`
`
`MOTION PRESENTING PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF IVAN HOFMANN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order in these IPRs, “the word-for-word
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.” See, e.g.,
`IPR2015-00990, Paper 29, footnote 1.
`
`28521314v2
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`
`Cases IPR2015-00990 and IPR2015-01093
`(Patent 7,056,886 B2)1
`
`
`MOTION PRESENTING PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF IVAN HOFMANN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Board’s Scheduling Order in these IPRs, “the word-for-word
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the heading.” See, e.g.,
`IPR2015-00990, Paper 29, footnote 1.
`
`28521314v2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Pursuant to the USPTO Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48767-68,
`
`48769 (August 14, 2012) and the Scheduling Order in these IPRs, Patent Owner
`
`NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“NPS”) submits this motion to present observations
`
`regarding the May 6, 2016 cross-examination testimony of Ivan Hofmann. See Ex.
`
`2170. Mr. Hofmann is a reply declarant of the Petitioner. See Ex. 1042.
`
`OBSERVATIONS REGARDING TESTIMONY OF MR. HOFMANN
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 9:8-10:2, Mr. Hofmann testified he has a bachelor’s degree
`
`and “obtained continuing education,” but he does not hold a masters, a Ph.D., or
`
`any university positions. See also id. 11:23-23-24 (alleging LES membership,
`
`available by paying dues, qualifies him to provide expert economic testimony).
`
`That testimony is relevant to whether Mr. Hofmann is qualified and credible as an
`
`economics expert on the subjects of long-felt need and commercial success, as
`
`presented in his declaration (Ex. 1042) and relied on in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply2
`
`at 22-25). This testimony is also relevant because it establishes that Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`qualifications do not rise to the level at which he should be considered a credible
`
`expert, such that his testimony should be afforded little weight.
`
`
`2 For convenience, citations to “Reply” encompass both IPRs, but refer specifically
`
`to Paper 42 in IPR2015-00990. Paper 40 in IPR2015-01093 is substantively
`
`identical, with different pagination.
`
`28521314v2
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 101:7-17, 117:4-118:21 and 144:8-15, Mr. Hofmann
`
`testified that alternatives to formulations claimed in the ‘886 patent are “possible”
`
`or “approvable”, i.e., that “other things” in a formulation with teduglutide would
`
`make it stable, but when asked whether he could point to stabilizers that could be
`
`used, Mr. Hofmann admitted, “I don't have examples of others coming up with
`
`formulations,” which he attempted to attribute to a lack of economic motivation to
`
`develop alternatives due to obstruction by “the compound patent [US 5,789,379]
`
`and other exclusivities.3 That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 34-35, 44-47, 63-65) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 23-25),
`
`which assert that commercial success of GATTEX® is not attributable to the ‘886
`
`patent claims. This testimony is also relevant to whether or not there are known
`
`alternatives to the stabilizing formulation for teduglutide claimed in the ‘886
`
`patent, such that the claimed formulation is necessary for Gattex to be a stable and
`
`commercially viable product, and thus enjoy its commercial success.
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 37:22-38:20, when asked whether the involved patent
`
`claims encompass more than teduglutide, Mr. Hofmann testified, “[t]here may be
`
`other APIs [besides teduglutide] that could fall within [the scope of the ‘886
`
`
`3 “The ‘886 patent” is involved US Patent 7,056,886 (Ex. 1003); “the 379 patent”
`
`is the so-called “blocking” or “compound” patent, US 5,789,379 (Ex. 1029).
`
`28521314v2
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`patent].” See also, id. at 63:12-83:19 (agreeing that each involved claim
`
`encompasses GLP-2 and/or GLP-2 analogs, i.e. not just teduglutide). That
`
`testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 28-30, 35) and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 24-25), which allege that the long felt need addressed
`
`by Gattex was a result “of the ‘379 patent limit[ing] the possibilities for
`
`development of other GLP-2 products that could have satisfied any purported need
`
`for GLP-2 products now identified by PO” (Reply at 25). This testimony is
`
`relevant because, by admitting that other APIs could fall within the scope of the
`
`‘886 patent, it addresses whether or not the ‘379 patent, by claiming teduglutide
`
`and not GLP-2 and many other GLP-2 analogs, precluded other GLP-2 products
`
`that could have satisfied the long felt need addressed by Gattex.
`
`4.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 90:3-94:10 and 96:17-23, Mr. Hofmann testified that
`
`alternative stable formulations of any GLP-analog could be developed without
`
`infringing the ‘379 patent, because “they’re permitted” and “the safe harbor
`
`provisions do allow such research,” and neither the ‘379 patent nor Gattex's orphan
`
`drug exclusivity precluded others from developing a stable formulation as claimed
`
`in the '886 patent (and licensing to NPS/Shire), to share in the profits of Gattex – a
`
`product with “hundreds of millions” in annual sales. That testimony is relevant to
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 28-30) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at
`
`24-25), which assert that “other companies did not have the economic incentive or
`
`28521314v2
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`ability to commercialize a GLP-2 analog product as a result of the blocking nature
`
`of the ‘379 Patent that covers Gattex®.” This testimony is also relevant because it
`
`addresses that a party was not precluded from developing a stable formulation of
`
`teduglutide and would have had an economic incentive to do so and license a
`
`resulting patent to NPS to share in the revenues of such a product.
`
`5.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 15:23-16:5, Mr. Hofmann testified that, “it's not atypical for
`
`the sponsor … to put some marketing effort behind a drug,” which can “vary by
`
`degree;” and at 178:21-180:16 and 184:15-186:23, he testified that “it’s typical that
`
`some level of marketing is put behind most branded drugs at some stage of their
`
`life cycle” and it “can generate demand,” which “really varies” under the
`
`circumstances, although “I don’t know” what sales representatives said” about
`
`Gattex and “promotional sensitivity” does not indicate whether or not sales were
`
`driven by the properties of Gattex. At 148:23-151:24, Mr. Hofmann testified that
`
`Gattex is marketed to physicians, “primarily gastroenterologists,” who are
`
`“specialized” and have “higher levels of training and education.” That testimony is
`
`relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 48-51) and Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Reply at 23), which assert that “the performance of Gattex® is driven by
`
`marketing” (Reply at 23). This testimony is relevant because it acknowledges that
`
`(1) Gattex marketing is not unlike marketing for all other marketed drugs and (2)
`
`the demand for a drug resulting from marketing efforts “really varies”, yet Mr.
`
`28521314v2
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Hofmann’s declaration does not indicate what portion of Gattex’s commercial
`
`success, if any, results from marketing (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 48-51).
`
`6.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 182:8-184:14, Mr. Hofmann testified he did not know
`
`whether Shire leveraged its Lialda sales force to promote Gattex; Shire could not
`
`have done so “prior to acquiring” NPS; and Gattex was approved years earlier, on
`
`December 21, 2012. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex.
`
`1042 at ¶ 51) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 22), which assert that commercial
`
`success of Gattex cannot be attributed to the ‘886 patent claims, because sales
`
`could have been driven by Shire’s plan to leverage the Lialda sales force. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Mr. Hofmann admits he does not know if Shire did
`
`so, which anyway it could not do prior to Shire’s acquisition of NPS, and could not
`
`have contributed to Gattex’s commercial success before the acquisition.
`
`7.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 58:3-5, 60:4-10, and 153:22-25, Mr. Hofmann recognized
`
`that Gattex must be stable for at least 90 days, at 152:15-153:9, he testified that,
`
`“the extent that the stability or lack of stability [of a drug] has implications with
`
`respect to safety and efficacy . . . and could affect [FDA] approval,” and at 163:18-
`
`164:22, he admits FDA approval is a prerequisite to a product attaining commercial
`
`success. He also admitted, at 37:18-38-21, 143:2-10 and 145:9-148:16, that a drug
`
`product is “a finished dosage form involving the active ingredient,” and that the
`
`‘886 patent claims the “commercial embodiment of Gattex,” which he understands
`
`28521314v2
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`is a lyophilized formulation and contains teduglutide as the GLP-2 analog API and
`
`which “includes L-histidine and a bulking agent of mannitol and/or sucrose.” See
`
`also Ex. 2170 at 159:9-169:14; 170:7-171:4 (acknowledging Petition’s admission
`
`of a design need for a stable GLP-2 formulation to meet FDA requirements). That
`
`testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 33) and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 22-24) and the Decision to Institute (IPR2015-00990,
`
`Paper 28 at 18; IPR2015-01093, Paper 26 at 18), which assert that commercial
`
`success of Gattex is attributed to the use of the active drug teduglutide (claimed in
`
`the ‘379 patent) rather than to the formulated product, Gattex, and its ability to
`
`provide teduglutide in a stable formulation (claimed in the ‘886 patent). This
`
`testimony is also relevant to the nexus between the ‘886 patent and Gattex’s
`
`commercial success and Gattex’s solution to a long felt need, e.g., the design of a
`
`stable formulation of teduglutide, without which no sales or commercial success
`
`would have been possible.
`
`8.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 49:13-53:18, Mr. Hofmann testified that, for his opinions on
`
`commercial success: (a) he did not consider the instructions in the Gattex label
`
`(Ex. 2088) that, prior to injection, a user must ensure particles are not formed; (b)
`
`he acknowledged “there are varying degrees of stability that exist with respect to
`
`marketed drugs”; (c) from “over a hundred” formulations, he is aware of products
`
`that “when reconstituted, have a shelf life of only a few hours”; and (d) although
`
`28521314v2
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`he did study the Gattex label (Ex. 2088), he did not actually consider shelf-life and
`
`stability requirements, nor have an opinion whether forming particles upon
`
`reconstituting the lyophilized formulation is a problem. That testimony is relevant
`
`to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 33) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at
`
`22-24) and the Decision to Institute (IPR2015-00990, Paper 28 at 18; IPR2015-
`
`01093, Paper 26 at 18), which question the nexus between formulations of the ‘886
`
`patent claims and the commercial success and solution to a long felt need provided
`
`by Gattex. The testimony is also relevant because Mr. Hofmann admits he did not
`
`consider, in his nexus analysis, whether Gattex requires the stability provided by
`
`the ‘886 patent in order to be safe and effective.
`
`9.
`
`In Ex. 2170, at 17:6-18:15, Mr. Hofmann counted about 750 patient
`
`assistance programs listed for drugs on the Medicare formulary (IPR2015-00990,
`
`Exs. 2161, 2162; IPR2015-01093, Exs. 2162, 21734), at 30:21-31:3, he stated that
`
`inclusion on this formulary “may or may not matter” for commercial success, and
`
`at 186:25-187:11, he testified that a drug paid for by a formulary, e.g, an insurance
`
`company, Medicare, or Medicaid, can still be a commercial success. That
`
`testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 58-62) and
`
`
`4 Ex. 2173 in IPR2015-01093 is identified as Ex. 2161 in the deposition transcript
`
`of Mr. Hofmann (Ex. 2170) and is identical to Ex. 2161 in IPR2015-00990.
`
`28521314v2
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 23), which assert that commercial success of Gattex
`
`does not come from the ‘886 patent claims, because the impact of formulary
`
`patient assistance programs has not been ruled out. This testimony is also relevant
`
`because it indicates that Mr. Hofmann does not opine that the Gattex’s patient
`
`assistance programs are different from the programs of other drugs, (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶
`
`52-62), and because it addresses whether or not commercial success is attributable
`
`to a patient assistance program, per se, compared to the ‘886 patent.
`
`10. In Ex. 2170, at 32:16-33:6, Mr. Hofmann testified, “all drugs have certain
`
`mandatory discounts,” “coupons”, and “incentives.” That testimony is relevant to
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 52-62) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at
`
`23), which assert that the commercial success of Gattex cannot be attributed to the
`
`involved patent claims, because the impact of such discounts has not been ruled
`
`out. This testimony is also relevant because it indicates that Mr. Hofmann did not
`
`opine that the Gattex discounts, etc. are different from the programs of other drugs,
`
`and because it addresses whether or not commercial success is attributable to
`
`discounts, etc. per se, compared to the ‘886 patent. See Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 52-62.
`
`11. In Ex. 2170, at 234:6-235:2, Mr. Hofmann testified that even though
`
`formularies will negotiate the best price they can, the cost of orphan drugs is “very
`
`high and has been trending upward” because “orphan drugs have been able to raise
`
`prices without having the same restrictions and negotiations that the manufacturers
`
`28521314v2
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`have experienced on products which affect a greater number of covered lives.” At
`
`21:6-23:24, Mr. Hofmann testified that a year supply of Gattex is about $400,000
`
`and is subject to a discount/rebate of “around 10 percent”, and although he believes
`
`patients are insulated from the full price of Gattex, “third-party payers bear the
`
`brunt of that cost,” paying Shire about $359,700 to $360,000 per patient annually.
`
`That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 28, 29,
`
`43, 65) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 24-25), which assert that the commercial
`
`success of Gattex® is not attributable to the ‘886 patent. This testimony is also
`
`relevant to the economic incentive for others to develop a stable, and thus
`
`commercially viable, formulation of teduglutide to treat SBS-IF, according to the
`
`‘886 patent.
`
`12. In Ex. 2170, at 27:22-29:25, Mr. Hofmann testified that various
`
`exclusivities (data, patent, NCE, and orphan drug or “ODE”) do not necessarily
`
`preclude commercial success, because “with each of these, one would need to look
`
`at the specific facts and circumstances.” That testimony is relevant to Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 28-30, 35, 63-65) and Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Reply at 23-25), and whether he considered such circumstances, in asserting that
`
`the commercial success of Gattex is attributable to these various exclusivities, per
`
`se, rather than to benefits conferred by the ‘886 patent.
`
`28521314v2
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`13. In Ex. 2170, at 96:21-97:9, 99:8-22, and 100:21-101:6, Mr. Hofmann
`
`testified that the ODE and NCE exclusivities for Gattex apply only to teduglutide
`
`and would not deter development of “other molecules”, e.g., GLP-2 or other GLP-
`
`2 analogs, within the claims of the ‘886 patent. That testimony is relevant to Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 63-65) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at
`
`24), which assert that these “various exclusivities for Gattex provide disincentives
`
`for competitors to market products for the treatment of SBS” (Reply at 24). The
`
`testimony is also relevant because it addresses that the regulatory exclusivities
`
`granted to Gattex arose after the ‘866 invention was made (i.e., the ‘866 priority
`
`date), and did not preclude anyone from developing other stable formulations of
`
`GLP-2 or GLP-2 analogs in competition with the ‘866 inventor, e.g., to solve a
`
`long felt need – treatment for SBS-IF.
`
`14. In Ex. 2170, at 101:18-102:2, 106:3-108:22 120:9-128:22; and 133:1-
`
`137:16, Mr. Hofmann testified that he would defer to medical doctors, clinicians,
`
`or technical experts for questions about parenteral nutrition (“PN”) and its
`
`complications; he did not know the annual per-patient cost of parenteral nutrition
`
`or who bears those costs; and he did not consider, as in Ex. 2165, whether catheter
`
`use from PN increases risk or infection, sepsis or other complications; although he
`
`did acknowledge that Ex. 2167 “says that the first patient to receive PN was in
`
`1968;” he “may have heard” of at least some clinical complications identified in
`
`28521314v2
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Ex. 2163; he agreed “one would be happier not to have septic shock” and other
`
`complications (see also Ex. 2166); and he admitted that “really reducing the need
`
`for PN to some degree is going to improve quality of life.” That testimony is
`
`relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 26-27) and Petitioner’s
`
`Reply (Reply at 24-25), which assert that Gattex failed to provide a solution to a
`
`long felt need. This testimony is also relevant because, although Petitioner asserts
`
`that Gattex provides no solution to a long felt need because “most patients taking
`
`Gattex will not be able to fully wean themselves from parenteral nutrition” (Reply
`
`at 24-25), the reduction (and in some cases elimination) in PN treatment needed by
`
`patients admittedly improves their quality of life and is relevant to addressing a
`
`long felt need.
`
`15. In Ex. 2170, at 109:4-115:20, Mr. Hofmann testified that what he knows
`
`about the drug Zorbtive is that “it’s out there,” although he did not know: (a) how
`
`many patients with SBS take Zorbtive; (b) whether Zorbtive is indicated only for a
`
`limited period of time (from the Zorbtive label, Ex. 2083, or otherwise); (c) how
`
`Zorbtive is discounted (although he agreed Ex. 2164 states “up to 75 percent”); (d)
`
`the annual sales of Zorbtive; and (e) the degree of off-label use of Zorbtive that
`
`could be driving its sales. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 31-32) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 25), which assert there was
`
`28521314v2
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`no long felt need for an effective treatment for SBS-IF because another product –
`
`Zorbtive – was available prior to Gattex.
`
`16. In Ex. 2170, at 188:3-20 and 122:11-123:22, Mr. Hofmann testified that,
`
`although he did not believe an 11-18% patient use of Gattex indicates a
`
`commercial success, he did not know why more eligible patients did not use
`
`Gattex, and he did not compare Gattex to other drugs and could not say what level
`
`of Gattex use he would consider a commercial success. That testimony is relevant
`
`to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 66-67) and Petitioner’s Reply
`
`(Reply at 23), which assert that Gattex’s “limited patient penetration” was
`
`indicative that it was not a commercial success. This testimony is also relevant
`
`because it indicates that Mr. Hofmann’s opinion regarding patient penetration is
`
`subjective.
`
`17. In Ex. 2170, at 189:20-191:22 and 192:15-200:19, Mr. Hofmann testified,
`
`in connection with the drug Finacea and Ex. 2167, that the court in a previous case,
`
`where he have gave opinions regarding “the heavy marketing and promotion and
`
`sampling of Finacea,” on balance “credited commercial success” for a drug having
`
`$562 million in net sales,” even though it appeared to have a relatively low patient
`
`penetration. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at
`
`¶¶ 66-67) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 23), which assert that Gattex’s “limited
`
`patient penetration” was indicative that it was not a commercial success.
`
`28521314v2
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`18. In Ex. 2170, at 215:10-219:9, 219:24-226:19, and 227:4-228:10, Mr.
`
`Hofmann acknowledged that three of the top ten selling orphan drugs in 2014 –
`
`Advate®, Revlimid®, and Velcade® - achieved patient penetration levels of 11%,
`
`15%, and 15%, respectively. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 66-67) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 23), which
`
`assert that Gattex’s “limited patient penetration” was indicative that it was not a
`
`commercial success. This testimony is also relevant because it shows that orphan
`
`drugs can still be commercially successful when they obtain patient penetration
`
`levels similar to that of Gattex, at 11-18%.
`
`19. In Ex. 2170, at 239:15-242:2, Mr. Hofmann testified that although a drug
`
`product launch “technically . . . does happen on a day that its commercially
`
`available,” he “do[es]n’t disagree that the uptake and prescribing volume happens
`
`over time, not a particular day,” but he did not “have an opinion one way or the
`
`other” on whether 85% of launches have a trajectory that is set in the first six
`
`months (e.g., per Ex. 2168), and at 242:10-245:4, Mr. Hofmann testified that the
`
`NPS stock price, as depicted in Ex. 2169, appears to have “negative slope” from
`
`January 1 through February 25, 2013 and “certainly has a positive slope” after
`
`February 25, 2013. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex.
`
`1042 at ¶ 84) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 24), which assert that “the
`
`commercial launch of Gattex® did not have a significant impact on the stock price
`
`28521314v2
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`of NPS.” This testimony is also relevant because it addresses whether or not
`
`movement in the NPS’s stock price coincided with and resulted from the Gattex
`
`launch (see Ex. 2041 at ¶ 58).
`
`20. In Ex. 2170, at 246:19-251:15 and 256:23-257:10, Mr. Hofmann testified
`
`that product sales contribute to stock price, and in connection with Ex. 2172, he
`
`testified that: (a) the stock price of NPS “about doubled” between October 2012
`
`and August 2013, while the XBI index increased by 50%; (b) the stock price of
`
`NPS increased “greater than four-fold” between October 2012 and February 2015,
`
`while the XBI index increased about 130%; (c) he did not normalize the index data
`
`he relied upon; and (d) “for the period of time after February 2013, the [NPS stock]
`
`price is up.” That testimony is relevant to whether Gattex contributed to a
`
`substantial increase in the NPS stock price that coincides with and resulted from
`
`the Gattex launch, as discussed in Mr. Hofmann’s Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 81-
`
`92) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 24). That testimony is also relevant because
`
`while Dr. Hofmann stated in his declaration that “NPS’s stock increase is generally
`
`consistent with the increases in [the XBI] ind[ex]” (Ex. 1042, ¶ 90) (emphasis
`
`added), he testified during his deposition that between October 2012 (five months
`
`prior to the Gattex launch) and August 2013 (five months after the launch), NPS’s
`
`stock price had increased more than double the XBI index price, and between
`
`28521314v2
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`October 2012 and February 2015 (three years after launch), the NPS stock price
`
`had increased by more than triple the XBI price.
`
`21. In Ex. 2170, at 257:20-267:13, Mr. Hofmann testified that actual
`
`performance and historical scales are among the factors used to make a projection
`
`of future sales; Shire had a strong financial incentive to perform due diligence
`
`regarding the NPS purchase; the value of Gattex would naturally be considered in
`
`an acquisition; Shire had no financial interest in NPS before the acquisition; future
`
`projections of an unlaunched product would not indicate commercial success; and
`
`Shire actually paid $5.2 billion in cash and stock to acquire NPS, of which (Ex.
`
`2127) $ 4.7 billion was allocated to marketed products, of which there were only
`
`two – Gattex and Natpara. That testimony is relevant to Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1042 at ¶¶ 93-103) and Petitioner’s Reply (Reply at 23-24), which
`
`assert that Shire’s acquisition of NPS does not indicate commercial success, even
`
`though Shire paid a very large sum of money and NPS shareholders profited, most
`
`of which was due to the value of Gattex, thus evidencing that Gattex is a
`
`commercial success.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that its Observations be considered.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28521314v2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: May 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Joseph R. Robinson/
`
`Joseph R. Robinson, PTO Reg. No. 33,448
`
` Heather M. Ettinger, PTO Reg. No. 51,658
` Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
` Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`28521314v2
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00990; -01093
`Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing MOTION
`
`PRESENTING PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF DR. IVAN HOFMANN has been on attorney for Petitioner,
`
`served via electronic mail on May 18, 2016, to the following addresses provided by
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 18, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dustin B. Weeks/
`
` Dustin B. Weeks, PTO Reg. No. 67,466
`
`
`
`28521314v2
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
