Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq.
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4300
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-001093
`Patent No. 7,056,886
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION PRESENTING
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF IVAN HOFMANN
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq.
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4300
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-001093
`Patent No. 7,056,886
`_____________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION PRESENTING
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF IVAN HOFMANN
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Coalition for Affordable Drugs II LLC (“Petitioner”) submits this
`
`Response to the Motion Presenting Patent Owner’s Observations Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Ivan Hofmann (Paper 48 in IPR2015-01093, “Hofmann
`
`Observations”). These responses to observations are timely submitted pursuant to
`
`a joint stipulation between the parties resetting the due date for these responses to
`
`May 31, 2016.
`
`On May 27, 2016, a teleconference between the Board and the Parties was
`
`held to provide guidance on how Petitioner should respond to Patent Owner’s
`
`improper Hofmann Observations. During the teleconference, the Board authorized
`
`Petitioner to include an introduction in its Responses to Patent Owner’s
`
`Observations explaining Petitioner’s objections and stating the relevant authority
`
`for those objections.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations are an Unauthorized Sur-Reply
`
`The Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48756-73 (August 14, 2012)
`
`clearly explains the purpose of observations on cross-examination is to draw the
`
`Board’s attention to relevant cross-examination testimony that “occurs after a party
`
`has filed its last substantive paper on an issue.” Chums, Inc. v. Cablz, Inc.
`
`IPR2014-01240, Paper 32, page 2. The Trial Practice Guide sets forth
`
`requirements for observations on cross-examination:
`
`1
`
`
`
`An observation should be a concise statement of the relevance of
`
`identified testimony to an identified argument or portion of an exhibit
`
`(including another part of the same testimony)…An observation…is
`
`not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue
`
`objections.
`
`Rather than following the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner instead filed
`
`Observations that are argumentative and attempt to introduce new exhibits into the
`
`record. Petitioner objects to this improper use of the observations, which amount
`
`to an unauthorized sur-reply. If Patent Owner wished to respond to arguments in
`
`Petitioner’s reply, the proper mechanism was to contact the Board and request
`
`permission for a sur-reply. Patent Owner chose not to do so, and it should not be
`
`allowed to substitute a sur-reply through improper observations. See Medtronic,
`
`Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37.
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Requirements for Filing Observations
`
`It is clear that many of Patent Owner’s Observations, which resemble a
`
`brief, re-argue issues and raise new issues. See, e.g., Observations 3 and 4, which
`
`raise new issues about the scope of the blocking ’379 patent and how that blocking
`
`patent affects the long-felt need and commercial success analysis. Additional
`
`examples of new or re-argued issues are addressed below in response to the
`
`specific Observations. This is improper, as it does not follow the Board’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`requirements that observations must be a concise statement of the relevance of
`
`precisely identified testimony to a precisely identified argument or portion of an
`
`exhibit. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, p. 2.
`
`In addition, many of the Hofmann Observations violate the requirement that
`
`the entire observation should not exceed one short paragraph. Id. Further, each
`
`observation should cite to one portion of testimony and not to large numbers of
`
`pages in one citation. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37,
`
`pp 3-4. For example, Petitioner objects that the Hofmann Observations
`
`inappropriately cite to the following extended portions of Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`testimony: citations to pp. 62:12-83:19 (Observation 3), pp. 159:9-169:14
`
`(Observation 7), pp. 120:9-128:22 (Observation 14), pp. 192:15-200:19
`
`(Observation 17) and pp. 257:20-267:13 (Observation 21).
`
`
`
`Finally, the Board has held that no new exhibits are permitted with
`
`Observations by stating that only testimony from cross-examination should be
`
`present in Observations. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper
`
`37, page 4, footnote 2. Again, Patent Owner did not follow this requirement. For
`
`example, Patent Owner attempts to improperly use the Hofmann Observations to
`
`introduce new Exhibit Nos. 2161-2169 and 2172 in IPR2015-00990 and new
`
`Exhibit Nos. 2162-2169 and 2172-2173 in IPR2015-01093. Patent Owner’s
`
`intention to include new exhibits is obvious given that it cites directly to new
`
`3
`
`
`
`exhibits in the Hofmann Observations (see citations to Exs. 2161-2162 in the -990
`
`matter in Observation 9, Exs. 2162 and 2173 in the -1093 matter in Observation 9,
`
`Ex. 2164 in both matters in Observation 15, and Ex. 2168 in both matters in
`
`Observation 19) and cites to Hofmann deposition testimony about those exhibits.
`
`Patent Owner argued during the teleconference with the Board on May 27,
`
`2016, that Petitioner waived the right to object to these new exhibits. That is not
`
`correct. Petitioner objected to the use of these exhibits during the Hofmann
`
`deposition. After the deposition, Petitioner had no way to know they would be
`
`used improperly as part of the Hofmann Observations. Once Petitioner saw that
`
`the new exhibits were used in the Hofmann Observations, Petitioner promptly
`
`objected to the Board that the Hofmann Observations were improper and should be
`
`expunged
`
`
`
`Given that Patent Owner’s Observations are argumentative, fail to follow the
`
`proper requirements set forth in the Trial Practice Guide, are excessively long, and
`
`attempt to introduce new exhibits into the record, these Observations amount to an
`
`unauthorized sur-reply. Accordingly, Petitioner objects to them.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS
`
`1.
`
`Response to Observation 1 – In Ex. 2170, at 10:4-23 and 11:20-
`
`12:17, Mr. Hofmann testified as to his qualifications as an expert in this matter and
`
`the requirements for becoming a member of LES. This testimony is relevant to
`
`4
`
`
`
`paragraphs 3-9 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042), which set forth
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s expertise and qualifications.
`
`2.
`
`Response to Observation 2 – In Ex. 2170, at 102:20-104:3 and
`
`115:22-118:21, Mr. Hofmann testified that he hasn’t seen anything to suggest that
`
`the particular ingredients in the formulation claimed in the ’886 patent are
`
`responsible for the sales of Gattex® (which is covered by the claims of that patent)
`
`in the market. Mr. Hofmann further testifies that neither Patent Owner’s expert Dr.
`
`Rausser nor Mr. Hofmann are technical experts, and thus neither are in position to
`
`address the importance of the particular ingredients to the formulation. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 22-23 and 33 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply
`
`declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`3.
`
`Response to Observation 3 – In Ex. 2170, at 27:8-21, 61:6-62:8
`
`and 87:10-88:3, Mr. Hofmann testified to the fact that the blocking patent U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,789,379 (“the blocking ’379 patent”) covers both teduglutide and
`
`other GLP-2 analog compounds, and provided a disincentive for others to develop
`
`treatments to short bowel syndrome (“SBS”), which affects the analysis of long-
`
`felt need and commercial success. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 14, 28-
`
`30 and 43 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 3 as argumentative to the extent it re-
`
`argues the issue of the blocking ‘379 patent, which was previously addressed in the
`
`declaration of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rausser.
`
`4.
`
`Response to Observation 4 – In Ex. 2170, at 27:8-21, 91:24-
`
`92:19 and 96:24-99:7, Mr. Hofmann testified to the fact that the blocking ’379
`
`patent provided a disincentive for others to develop treatments for SBS, and the
`
`ability to research SBS treatments under the Safe Harbor provisions of patent law
`
`are not enough to overcome these disincentives to developing an SBS product.
`
`This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 14, 28-30 and 43 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply
`
`declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 4 as argumentative to the extent it re-
`
`argues the issue of the blocking ‘379 patent, which was previously addressed in the
`
`declaration of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rausser.
`
`5.
`
`Response to Observation 5 – In Ex. 2170, at 154:16-156:19,
`
`178:11-20, and 186:6-24, Mr. Hofmann provided testimony about how Patent
`
`Owner’s expert Dr. Rausser did not properly take into account the role of
`
`marketing in the sales of Gattex, particularly NPS’s and Shire’s marketing of the
`
`efficacy of Gattex. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 40 and 48-50 of Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 5 as argumentative to the extent it
`
`raises a new issue that the marketing of Gattex is like the marketing of other drug
`
`products. Patent Owner previously could have raised this issue but chose to wait
`
`too late, and cannot now raise this issue as a sur-reply.
`
`6.
`
`Response to Observation 6 – In Ex. 2170, at p. 183:5-25, Mr.
`
`Hofmann explained the Shire documents indicate that Shire intended to make use
`
`of its experience marketing its gastrointestinal product Lialda to help further
`
`market Gattex to gastroenterologists after Gattex was acquired from NPS. Further,
`
`Mr. Hofmann testified that Shire may have started to “create awareness” of Gattex
`
`with gastroenterologists before the acquisition of NPS was complete. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraph 51 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1042).
`
`7.
`
`Response to Observation 7 – In Ex. 2170, at 163:18-164:20,
`
`Mr. Hofmann testified that the FDA requirement that a product be stable in order
`
`to be approved for sale is not a proxy for whether a product is commercially
`
`successful in terms of the patent law. (See also Ex. 2170 at 58:6-60:10, 102:20-
`
`104:3, 144:8-21, 152:15-24.) This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 44-47 of
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 7 as argumentative to the extent it re-
`
`argues the issue of FDA approval being an indicator of commercial success, which
`
`was previously addressed in the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rausser.
`
`8.
`
`Response to Observation 8 – In Ex. 2170, at 49:21-50:17 and
`
`53:5-18, Mr. Hofmann testified that the efficacy of teduglutide was the “primary
`
`motivator” in the sales of Gattex and he didn’t see anything in the literature about
`
`Gattex discussing “residual particles in a particular formulation and the
`
`implications thereof upon reconstitution of a lyophilized formulation” as a factor
`
`affecting the sales of Gattex. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 36-40 of Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`9.
`
`Response to Observation 9 – In Ex. 2170, at 19:10-21:5 and
`
`31:4-23, Mr. Hofmann testified to the role that patient assistance programs play in
`
`the sales of Gattex, which is part of the commercial success analysis. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 52-62 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1042).
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 9 as argumentative to the extent it
`
`raises a new issue that the patient assistance program for Gattex is like the
`
`programs of other drug products. Patent Owner previously could have raised this
`
`issue but chose to wait too late, and cannot now raise this issue as a sur-reply.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Observation No. 9 because Patent Owner seeks
`
`to use this Observation to introduce new exhibits nos. 2162 and 2173 that provide
`
`new arguments about Medicare formularies. These new exhibits are an improper
`
`attempt to provide sur-reply evidence and supplement the testimony of Dr.
`
`Rausser, and they should be stricken as untimely
`
`10.
`
`Response to Observation 10 – In Ex. 2170, at 22:3-21 and 32:3-
`
`33:6, Mr. Hofmann testified to coupons or rebates that lower the cost of Gattex
`
`and contribute to the sales of Gattex. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 59
`
`of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042), which previously explained that
`
`such coupons or rebates, and their ability to insulate patients from the cost of a
`
`drug, was not properly taken into account by Dr. Rausser in his commercial
`
`success analysis.
`
`11.
`
`Response to Observation 11 – In Ex. 2170, at 233:14-234:19,
`
`Mr. Hofmann testified that orphan drugs are able to maintain higher prices because
`
`these drugs have few competitors in the market because the patient populations
`
`being treated are small. Mr. Hofmann further testified that any individual drug
`
`formulary may not focus on reducing the cost of an orphan drug (as opposed to a
`
`drug with a larger patient population) because only a few patients using the drug
`
`formulary may be treated by that orphan drug. This testimony is relevant to
`
`9
`
`
`
`paragraphs 71-79 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042), which states
`
`that the price of Gattex is not an indicator of its commercial success.
`
`12.
`
`Response to Observation 12 – In Ex. 2170, at 26:3-20 and 27:8-
`
`29:25, Mr. Hofmann testified that various exclusivities, including exclusivities
`
`from the blocking ’379 patent and FDA exclusivities (NCE and ODE exclusivities)
`
`combined to reduced incentives to develop SBS products, which affects the
`
`commercial success analysis. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 28-30 and
`
`63-65 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`13.
`
`Response to Observation 13 – In Ex. 2170, at 96:17-97:19 and
`
`100:21-101:17, Mr. Hofmann testified that various exclusivities, including
`
`exclusivities from the blocking ’379 patent and FDA exclusivities (NCE and ODE
`
`exclusivities) combined to reduced incentives to develop SBS products, which
`
`affects the commercial success analysis. This testimony is relevant to paragraphs
`
`28-30 and 63-65 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`14.
`
`Response to Observation 14 – In Ex. 2170, at 101:18-102:2,
`
`107:7-109:3, Mr. Hofmann testified that Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Rausser does
`
`not provide support for his argument that a reduction in the use of parenteral
`
`nutrition caused by the use of Gattex will reduce complications that arise from the
`
`use of parenteral nutrition. Mr. Hofmann further states that clinicians, not Dr.
`
`Rausser or Mr. Hofmann, would be the parties that would know what the reduction
`
`10
`
`
`
`in parenteral nutrition would achieve. This testimony is relevant to paragraph 27
`
`of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Observation No. 14 because Patent Owner seeks
`
`to use this Observation to introduce new exhibits nos. 2163 and 2165-2167 that
`
`provide new arguments about reducing complications of using parenteral nutrition.
`
`This is a response by Patent Owner to Mr. Hofmann pointing out the lack of
`
`support for Dr. Rausser’s previous opinions. These new exhibits are an improper
`
`attempt to provide sur-reply evidence and supplement the testimony of Dr.
`
`Rausser, and they should be stricken as untimely.
`
`15.
`
`Response to Observation 15 – In Ex. 2170, Dr. Hofmann
`
`testified that sales and patient for Zorbtive® is not available because the product
`
`has been sold by Merck for the last ten years, and Merck does not make the data
`
`available (112:17-20, 113:5-114:8 and 286:11-15). Mr. Hofmann further testified
`
`that the label for Zorbtive does not limit the amount of time it can be prescribed,
`
`contrary to arguments from Patent Owner. (Ex. 2170 at 110:6-18.) Mr. Hofmann
`
`further testified that he was not familiar with the rebates.com article that was
`
`shown to him at his deposition; he did not testify that he is not aware of the amount
`
`of any rebate for Zorbtive, as Patent Owner inaccurately stated in the observation.
`
`(Ex. 2170 at 111:15-112:6.) This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 31-32 of Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner further objects to Observation No. 15 because Patent Owner seeks
`
`to use this Observation to introduce new exhibit no. 2164 that provides new
`
`arguments about discounts for Zorbtive. This new exhibit is an improper attempt
`
`to provide sur-reply evidence and supplement the testimony of Dr. Rausser, and it
`
`should be stricken as untimely
`
`16.
`
`Response to Observation 16 – In Ex. 2170, 188:3-20 and
`
`122:11-123:22, Mr. Hofmann testified that the level of usage of Gattex by eligible
`
`patients (11%-18%) indicates that it is not commercially successful. He also
`
`testified that facts and circumstances of a particular situation dictate what level of
`
`patient penetration he would consider to be evidence of commercial success. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 66-68 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1042).
`
`17.
`
`Response to Observation 17 – In Ex. 2170, at 276:17-277:16
`
`and 285:11-15, Mr. Hofmann testified that analysis of the market for the drug
`
`Finacea is not relevant to analysis of the market for Gattex because Finacea is not
`
`an orphan drug, has a different market, has a different competitive landscape and
`
`has different patient populations. Further, Mr. Hofmann testified that there were
`
`many assumptions in the questions posed to him that may affect the calculation of
`
`the patient population for Fiancea. (Ex. 2170 at 198:18-200:17.) This testimony is
`
`12
`
`
`
`relevant to the argument in Observation 17 that the patient population for other
`
`drugs is relevant to the commercial success or long-felt need analysis for Gattex.
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 17 because Patent Owner seeks to use
`
`this Observation to introduce new exhibit no. 2167 to provide information about
`
`Finacea. This new exhibit is an improper attempt to provide sur-reply evidence
`
`and supplement the testimony of Dr. Rausser, and it should be stricken as
`
`untimely.
`
`18.
`
`Response to Observation 18 – In Ex. 2170, at 282:21-283:4,
`
`Mr. Hofmann testified that he was not familiar with the drug Advate, and thus he
`
`had no opinion as to how Advate® may impact the analysis of the commercial
`
`success of Gattex. Further, Mr. Hofmann testified that any analysis of the drugs
`
`Revlimid® and Velcade® not relevant to analysis of the market for Gattex because
`
`he didn’t calculate meaningful patient population percentages for Revlimid and
`
`Velcade. (Ex. 2170 at 283:24-284:20.) Moreover, he testified that Revlimid and
`
`Velcade have different markets and different competitive landscapes. (Id. at
`
`283:11-23, 284:13-20 and 285:11-15.) This testimony is relevant to the argument
`
`in Observation 18 that the patient population for other drugs is relevant to the
`
`commercial success and long-felt need analysis for Gattex.
`
`19.
`
`Response to Observation 19 – In Ex. 2170, at 238:20-239:14,
`
`241:9-22 and 242:10-244:8 Mr. Hofmann testified that the stock price for NPS
`
`13
`
`
`
`generally stayed the same after the launch of Gattex; thus, the stock price was not
`
`evidence of commercial success. Further, when Patent Owner showed Mr.
`
`Hofmann two new exhibits (Ex. Nos. 2168-2169) at his deposition, he testified that
`
`he had not seen the documents or the data underlying them; thus, he could not
`
`testify about them one way or the other as relates to commercial success. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraphs 81-92 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex.
`
`1042).
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 19 because Patent Owner seeks to use
`
`this Observation to introduce new exhibits nos. 2168-2169 that provide new
`
`arguments about the stock price of NPS. These exhibits are submitted as a
`
`response by Patent Owner to Mr. Hofmann pointing out the stock price of NPS
`
`does not support an argument for the commercial success of Gattex. These new
`
`exhibits are an improper attempt to provide sur-reply evidence and supplement the
`
`testimony of Dr. Rausser, and they should be stricken as untimely.
`
`20.
`
`Response to Observation 20 – In Ex. 2170, at 246:19-24, Mr.
`
`Hofmann testified that many variables affect the price of a company’s stock, and
`
`the performance of a product may be only one of those variables. Mr. Hofmann
`
`further testified that the price of NPS’s stock in the relevant timeframe had the
`
`same longitudinal trend as two index funds containing the stocks of other
`
`pharmaceutical companies. (Ex. 2170 at 249:11-251:3 and 272:7-274:18.)
`
`14
`
`
`
`Further, Patent Owner points out in Observation 20 that Mr. Hofmann did not
`
`“normalize” the data he reviewed, but, as Mr. Hofmann testified, Patent Owner’s
`
`expert Dr. Rausser did not normalize the data he relied upon either. (Id. at 274:19-
`
`25.) This testimony is relevant to paragraphs 85-91 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply
`
`declaration (Ex. 1042).
`
`Petitioner objects to Observation No. 20 because Patent Owner seeks to use
`
`this Observation to introduce new exhibit no. 2172 to provide information about
`
`the stock price of NPS. This new exhibit is an improper attempt to provide sur-
`
`reply evidence and supplement the testimony of Dr. Rausser, and it should be
`
`stricken as untimely.
`
`21.
`
`Response to Observation 21 – In Ex. 2170, at 260:25-261:8,
`
`261:20-263:21 and 265:18-22, Mr. Hofmann testified that there are many reasons
`
`why one company acquires another company and many factors that go into the
`
`price the acquiring company pays, including that the acquiring company may
`
`overvalue the proposition and pay too much for it. This testimony is relevant to
`
`paragraphs 93-103 of Mr. Hofmann’s Reply declaration (Ex. 1042), which explain
`
`that the price paid by Shire for NPS is not evidence of any commercial success of
`
`15
`
`
`
`Gattex.
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Matthew L. Fedowitz
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq., Reg. No. 58,886
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq., Reg. No. 61,386
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4300
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`16
`
`
`
`Certification of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.6, the undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of
`
`this PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION PRESENTING PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`IVAN HOFMANN has been served on May 31, 2016, by email on counsel of
`
`record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`
`Joseph R. Robinson
`Heather Morehouse Ettinger
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174-0700
`joseph.robinson@troutmansanders.com
`heather.ettinger@troutmansanders.com
`
`Dustin B. Weeks
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5200
`Atlanta, GA 30308-2231
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`Date: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew L. Fedowitz
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Reg. No. 61,386
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`Attorney for Petitioner CFAD
`
`17
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
