throbber
Paper No. __
`Filed: May 12, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________
`
`IPR2015-01097 (US Patent No. 8,751,131)
`IPR2015-01099 (US Patent No. 8,669,290)
`IPR2015-01100 (US Patent No. 8,927,606)
`IPR2015-01105 (US Patent No. 8,871,813)1
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(C)
`
`1 The word-for-word identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the
`
`heading. IPR2016-00089 has been joined with IPR2015-01097; IPR2016-00091
`
`has been joined with IPR2015-01100; and IPR2016-00090 has been joined with
`
`IPR2015-01105. Each of these joined proceedings includes Petitioners
`
`InnoPharma Licensing, Inc., InnoPharma Licensing LLC, InnoPharma Inc., Mylan
`
`Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Mylan Inc. (collectively, “InnoPharma”) in addition to
`
`the parties identified above.
`
`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s Opinions and Testimony Regarding any Issue of
`Organic or Medicinal Chemistry Should Be Excluded Under FRE 702 ......... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Dr. Lawrence’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination ............................................ 2
`
`Dr. Lawrence Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Chemistry,
`or Challenge Those Opinions of Senju’s Qualified Expert .................. 2
`
`II.
`
`Portions of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Lawrence and New
`Accompanying Exhibits Should be Excluded Under FRE 402 and 403 ......... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to the Lawrence Reply Declaration and
`Accompanying Exhibits, Upon Which Petitioner Relied ..................... 8
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits
`Exceed the Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.23(b) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Paragraphs 31-33, 37-38, and footnote 5 of EX1094 and
`EX1096-1098, EX1100-1102, and EX1172-1173 ...................... 9
`
`EX1107, EX1108, and EX1109 ................................................10
`
`C.
`
`The Portions of Dr. Lawrence’s Reply Declaration and
`Supporting Exhibits Identified Above Lack Relevance under
`FRE 402 and Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403 ....................................11
`
`III. Mr. Hofmann’s Opinions and Testimony Should Be Excluded Under
`FRE 702 .........................................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Mr. Hofmann’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination ..........................................12
`
`B. Mr. Hofmann Is Not Qualified to Opine Beyond Economics ............12
`
`IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.64(c) and 42.61(a), and the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence, Patent Owner Senju moves to exclude three categories of evidence filed
`
`by Petitioners. First, Senju moves to exclude the Reply Declaration of M. Jayne
`
`Lawrence, Ph.D. (EX1094), specifically at least paragraphs 31, 33, 36-37, 48-49,
`
`51-52, and 73, and footnote 5, allegedly supporting EX1174 and 1176, and the
`
`related testimony of Dr. Lawrence (EX2342), because Dr. Lawrence completely
`
`lacks expertise in organic or medicinal chemistry and, thus, she is not qualified by
`
`knowledge, skill experience, training or education necessary to form an opinion
`
`under FRE 702. Second, Senju moves to exclude paragraphs 31-33, 37-38, as well
`
`as footnote 5 of EX1094, and allegedly supporting EX1096-1098, 1100-1102,
`
`1107-1109, and 1172-1173, because these exhibits lack relevance under FRE 402,
`
`as they exceed the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b),
`
`and because they are prejudicial under FRE 403 to Senju, as Senju is unable to
`
`respond to the new arguments contained to them. Finally, Senju moves to exclude
`
`the Reply Declaration of Ivan T. Hofmann (EX1122) in its entirety because of Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s improper behavior during cross examination, and specifically at least
`
`paragraphs 25-27, 42, 59-60, 62, 69-70, 72-80, 86-87, 99, 102, and 110, and the
`
`related testimony of Mr. Hofmann (EX2343), because he also provides opinions on
`
`technical and medical matters for which he is not qualified by knowledge, skill,
`
`experience, training or education necessary to form an opinion under FRE 702.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`I.
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s Opinions and Testimony Regarding any Issue of
`Organic or Medicinal Chemistry Should Be Excluded Under FRE 702
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Dr. Lawrence’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination
`
`Senju timely objected to EX1094, specifically paragraphs 31, 33, 36-37, 48-
`
`49, 51-52, and 73, and footnote 5, under FRE 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 in
`
`objections filed and served April 29, 2016.2 Further, during Dr. Lawrence’s two
`
`cross-examinations (EX2316, 31:3-43:8; 141:15-142:2; EX2342, 9:11-14:10; 16:3-
`
`23:10; 263:21-264:10), Senju extensively challenged and objected to Dr.
`
`Lawrence’s lack of qualifications necessary to form an opinion under FRE 702.
`
`B. Dr. Lawrence Is Not Qualified to Offer Opinions on Chemistry, or
`Challenge Those Opinions of Senju’s Qualified Expert
`
`In her Reply Declaration, Dr. Lawrence offers opinions on organic and
`
`medicinal chemistry issues to argue that the instituted claims are allegedly obvious
`
`and to challenge the declarative evidence on secondary considerations submitted
`
`by Patent Owner. As she even readily admits, Dr. Lawrence completely lacks
`
`expertise in organic and medicinal chemistry—the central technology of this
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, Dr. Lawrence’s opinions should be excluded.
`
`Dr. Lawrence was cross-examined twice during this proceeding, and each
`
`time, Patent Owner explored her complete lack of relevant expertise. At the outset,
`
`2 (Paper 40 in IPR2015-1097, IPR2015-01100, and IPR2015-01105, and Paper 39
`
`in IPR2015-1099.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Dr. Lawrence held herself out to be an expert in “the field of formulation and drug
`
`delivery, specifically pharmaceutical formulation for oral and parenteral use . . .”
`
`(EX1094, ¶ 4.) She is not a medical doctor and has never practiced medicine or
`
`prescribed medication to a patient (EX2316, 31:6-11; EX2342, 13:11-15). Further,
`
`Dr. Lawrence is no longer an active pharmacist, having not dispensed a drug in the
`
`last 20 years (EX2316, 34:17-20; EX2342, 13:19-21), and she has never dispensed
`
`any bromfenac product. (EX2316, 34:21-35:2; EX2342, 13:22-14:2.) She has
`
`never formulated any marketed drug product or any product for treating an
`
`inflammatory disease of the eye and never conducted any research on any
`
`bromfenac product. (EX2316, 35:3-5; 35:11-18; EX2342, 16:3-17; 14:3-5.)
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s formal education is in pharmacy, not chemistry. (EX2342,
`
`12:22-13:5; EX1005, ¶ 5.) She has never held a faculty position in any chemistry
`
`department. (EX1005, ¶ 7.) She is not a member of the American Chemical
`
`Society and has never published anything in the Journal of the American Chemical
`
`Society. (EX2316, 39:5-22; EX2342, 11:21-12:21.) Dr. Lawrence has only ever
`
`filed two patent applications, and neither is relevant to the ’290, ’131, ’831, or ’606
`
`patents. (EX2316, 42:7-43:8; E2342, 22:11-23:10.) After an extensive review of
`
`her credentials during her cross examinations, Dr. Lawrence readily admitted that
`
`she is not an expert in medicinal chemistry, organic chemistry, or antioxidant
`
`chemistry and that she had never been qualified by any court or the U.S.P.T.O. as
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`an expert in chemistry. (EX2316, 40:1-5; EX2342, 9:16-11:20.) Tellingly, in a
`
`moment of candor, Dr. Lawrence wondered out loud if her chemistry was “rusty.”
`
`(EX2316, 289:3-4.) Thus, with respect to the central issues Dr. Lawrence and
`
`Petitioners have raised in this proceeding, Dr. Lawrence has no experience or
`
`expertise whatsoever, and therefore she is unqualified to provide expert testimony.
`
`Dr. Lawrence not only is unqualified to offer her own opinions but also is
`
`unqualified to challenge the opinions of Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Davies. For
`
`example, Dr. Lawrence contends that the compound tyloxapol is an “alkylphenol,”
`
`like those disclosed in the Doi patent (EX2030). (EX1094, ¶ 33.) A phenol,
`
`however, is by definition a compound having one or more hydroxyl (-OH) groups
`
`attached to a phenyl ring. Tyloxapol is therefore by definition not an alkylphenol
`
`and is not taught by Doi, contrary to Dr. Lawrence’s opinions. When asked
`
`whether tyloxapol contains an OH group directly attached to the phenyl ring, Dr.
`
`Lawrence could not provide a straight answer, and simply responded: “It might
`
`do.” (EX2342, 222:17-21.) When also asked whether tyloxapol contains one OH
`
`group at the very end of each R group, which the chemical structure of tyloxapol
`
`depicted in Dr. Lawrence’s reply declaration clearly establishes, Dr. Lawrence
`
`responded: “Not necessarily.” (EX2342, 222:10-16.) Worse still, Dr. Lawrence’s
`
`testimony with respect to these matters of basic chemistry directly conflicts with
`
`Petitioners’ other expert in separate, but related, IPR proceedings for the same
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`family of patents, Dr. Laskar, who testified that tyloxapol does not contain an OH
`
`group directly attached to the phenyl ring and that tyloxapol does contain one OH
`
`group at the end of each R group. (EX2342, 222:22-225:9; EX2331, 46:21-47:4.)
`
`Moreover, Dr. Lawrence’s reliance on a series of wholly irrelevant
`
`references that teach the use of tyloxapol in biological systems to prevent biologic
`
`injury (see EX1097-1098, EX1100-EX1102, EX1172) further establishes that Dr.
`
`Lawrence is unqualified to offer opinions regarding organic or medicinal chemistry.
`
`As Dr. Davies explained in the parallel district court litigation regarding
`
`the ’290, ’131, ’831, and ’606 patents, bromfenac is subject to oxidation in
`
`aqueous ophthalmic solutions in the presence of oxygen (O2). (EX2344.) EX1100,
`
`EX1172, and EX1101 cited by Dr. Lawrence study the ability of tyloxapol to
`
`prevent biologic injury from “partially reduced O2 species,” which are not oxygen.
`
`(EX2344, at ¶ 29.) “Partially reduced O2 species” are simply not present in the
`
`claimed bromfenac ophthalmic solutions of the ’290, ’131, ’813, and ’606 patents,
`
`as Dr. Lawrence acknowledged. (EX2342, 234:20-235:2.) Dr. Davies further
`
`explained that the Ghio article (EX1102) similarly studies the use of tyloxapol in
`
`biological systems to “inhibi[t] activation of the transcription factor nuclear factor-
`
`kappa B . . .,” as well as tyloxapol’s ability to serve as an antioxidant for hydroxyl
`
`radicals, generated in the presence of ferrous ions, and hypochlorous acid,
`
`generated from ‘leukocyte myeloperoxidase.” (EX2344, at ¶ 29.) Hydroxy
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`radicals and hypochlorous acid are also not oxygen and are similarly not present in
`
`the claimed bromfenac ophthalmic solutions of the ’290, ’131, ’813, and ’606
`
`patents, as Dr. Lawrence again acknowledged. (Id.; EX2342, 234:6-18.) These
`
`references are therefore not relevant to bromfenac’s oxidative degradation, and
`
`nothing in these references establishes that tyloxapol would behave as an
`
`antioxidant for O2 in an aqueous solution of bromfenac. (EX2344, at ¶ 29.)
`
`Indeed, if tyloxapol did inhibit O2, its administration as a therapeutic agent by
`
`aerosol treatment to the lungs as in EX1101 (see 3:2-5) would be potentially fatal
`
`in vivo. In sum, it is not surprising that Dr. Lawrence’s opinions in her Reply
`
`Declaration (EX1094) are inconsistent with the opinions offered by Dr. Davies, an
`
`undisputed expert in organic and medicinal chemistry.
`
`To qualify as an expert, a witness must have “knowledge, skill, experience,
`
`training, or education” relevant to the evidence or facts at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 702.
`
`In addition, an expert must be more than simply “qualified” in any discipline. The
`
`expert must be qualified in the subject matter about which he or she proposes to
`
`testify. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (expert who may have been qualified to testify as to patent office
`
`procedures not qualified to testify on patent validity because of a lack of
`
`experience and training in the pertinent art). The Federal Circuit has stated that
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`“[a]dmitting testimony from a [witness], with no skill in the pertinent art, serves
`
`only to cause mischief and confuse the factfinder.” Sundance, 550 F.3d at 1362.
`
`Under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) and
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702, courts and the Board are charged with a “gatekeeping role,” the
`
`objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony admitted into evidence is both
`
`reliable and relevant. Because Dr. Lawrence, by her own admission, has no
`
`training or experience in organic or medicinal chemistry, which is the very subject
`
`matter Dr. Lawrence and Petitioners have placed at issue in this proceeding, her
`
`opinions fail to comply with Fed. R. Evid. 702. Dr. Lawrence plainly lacks both
`
`the knowledge and experience required for the opinions she provides in EX1094.
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s purported expertise in the fields of formulation and drug
`
`delivery does not now qualify her as an expert in chemistry. See Extreme
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 395 F. App’x 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`(“General experience in a related field may not suffice when experience and skill
`
`in specific product design are necessary to resolve patent issues.”) Indeed, during
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s first cross examination, Petitioners’ counsel repeatedly objected to
`
`questions relating to chemistry, such as the three-dimensional structures and
`
`chemical structures of NSAIDS, as “outside the scope” of Dr. Lawrence’s
`
`expertise. (E.g., EX2316, 90:5-13; 92:8-14; 101:9-102:3; 169:9-17.) Yet now,
`
`Petitioners rely on Dr. Lawrence’s opinions on these and other chemistry issues,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`despite their previous objection that these issues were “outside the scope” of Dr.
`
`Lawrence’s expertise. (EX1094, ¶¶ 36, 48-49, 51-52.) Because she is unqualified,
`
`Dr. Lawrence’s opinions expressed in EX1094, specifically at least paragraphs 31,
`
`33, 36-37, 48-49, 51-52, and 73, footnote 5, and EX1174 and EX1176 regarding
`
`organic or medicinal chemistry are unreliable, cannot assist the trier of fact as Fed.
`
`R. Evid. 702 requires, should be afforded no weight, and should be excluded.
`
`II.
`
`Portions of the Reply Declaration of Dr. Lawrence and New
`Accompanying Exhibits Should be Excluded Under FRE 402 and 403
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to the Lawrence Reply Declaration and
`Accompanying Exhibits, Upon Which Petitioner Relied
`
`In objections filed and served on April 29, 2016, Senju objected to EX1094,
`
`specifically ¶¶ 31, 33, and 37, and footnote 5, and allegedly supporting EX1096-
`
`1098, 1100-1102, and 1172-1173, under FRE 402 and 403 as being directed to
`
`improper new testimony from Dr. Lawrence that tyloxapol allegedly is an
`
`antioxidant.3 Senju further objected to Exhibits 1107-1109, under FRE 402 and
`
`403, which Petitioners use to allegedly support a new argument in Petitioners’
`
`Reply that a POSA would expect switching polysorbate 80 with tyloxapol to
`
`improve preservative efficacy because polysorbate 80 allegedly was known to
`
`neutralize BAC. Id.
`
`
`3 (Paper 40 in IPR2015-1097, IPR2015-01100, and IPR2015-01105, and Paper 39
`
`in IPR2015-1099.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`B. Dr. Lawrence’s Reply Declaration and Supporting Exhibits
`Exceed the Scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)
`1.
`
`Paragraphs 31-33, 37-38, and footnote 5 of EX1094 and
`EX1096-1098, EX1100-1102, and EX1172-1173
`
`In its Reply, Petitioner relies upon the Lawrence Reply Declaration
`
`(EX1094) for an entirely new argument for why a POSA allegedly would have
`
`reason to modify Ogawa in view of Sallmann, relying on eight new references.4 In
`
`EX1094, Dr. Lawrence posits, for the first time, that:
`
`And, to the extent that Drs. Davies and Williams are
`correct, a POSA would have been even more motivated
`to use tyloxapol in a bromfenac formulation as a POSA
`would have been aware of the studies suggesting that
`tyloxapol is an antioxidant.
`
`(EX1094, ¶ 31(emphasis added).) In Dr. Lawrence’s opening declaration
`
`(EX1005), her first cross examination, and the Petition, however, not once did Dr.
`
`Lawrence or Petitioners argue that a POSA would replace polysorbate 80 with
`
`tyloxapol because tyloxapol allegedly is an antioxidant. This is an entirely new
`
`argument, to which Patent Owner has had no opportunity to respond. In
`
`connection with this new argument, Dr. Lawrence discusses eight new references
`
`
`4 (Reply, Paper 38 in IPR2015-1099 at 7, Paper 37 in IPR2015-1097, IPR2015-
`
`1105, and IP2015-1100 at 7.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`in detail, blatantly mischaracterizing each reference. (See EX1094, ¶¶ 31-33, 37-
`
`38, and fn. 5; EX1096-1098, EX1100-1102, and EX1172-1173.)
`
`Moreover, Petitioners knew that bromfenac degraded by oxidation and this
`
`new testimony regarding the alleged use of an antioxidant could have been
`
`previously presented. Indeed, Dr. Lawrence’s initial declaration at ¶ 66(e)
`
`(EX1005) states that stabilizers, such as antioxidants, are added to ophthalmic
`
`formulations to decrease the decomposition of the active ingredient and that
`
`Ogawa Example 6 uses the stabilizer sodium sulfite (EX1005, ¶186, last sentence),
`
`a well-known antioxidant. Petitioner’s failure to address a known issue until the
`
`Reply round of submissions plainly warrants exclusion.
`
`EX1107, EX1108, and EX1109
`
`2.
`In its Reply, Petitioner argues for the first time that a POSA allegedly would
`
`expect that switching polysorbate 80 with tyloxapol would improve preservative
`
`efficacy because polysorbate 80 allegedly was known to neutralize BAC. 5
`
`Petitioner sets forth three new references in connection with this new argument.
`
`(EX1107-1109.) Patent Owner has had no opportunity to respond to this entirely
`
`new argument relating to alleged motivation to combine, and accordingly this new
`
`argument should be excluded.
`
`5 (Reply, Paper 38 in IPR2015-1099 at 5, Paper 37 in IPR2015-1097, IPR2015-
`
`1105, and IP2015-1100 at 5.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`C. The Portions of Dr. Lawrence’s Reply Declaration and
`Supporting Exhibits Identified Above Lack Relevance under FRE
`402 and Are Prejudicial Under FRE 403
`
`Paragraphs 31-33, 37-38, as well as footnote 5 of EX1094 and Exhibits
`
`1096-1098, 1100-1102, 1107-1109, and 1172-1173 described above should be
`
`excluded because they lack relevance under FRE 402, as they exceed the proper
`
`scope of Petitioner’s Reply under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Arguments in support of a
`
`reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner
`
`response.” Id. As explained in the Trial Practice Guide, “new evidence necessary
`
`to make out a prima facie for [] unpatentability” and “new evidence that could
`
`have been presented in a prior filing” are improper. 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. “[A]
`
`reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered
`
`and may be returned.” Id. Indeed, “[i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners
`
`in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that initial petition identify ‘with
`
`particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., No. 15-1639 at
`
`16 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016). Moreover, these portions of EX1094 and the exhibits
`
`listed above should be excluded under FRE 403 because they were first presented
`
`at the Reply stage and Patent Owner is prejudiced by being unable to respond to
`
`the untimely evidence and arguments therein.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`III. Mr. Hofmann’s Opinions and Testimony Should Be Excluded Under
`FRE 702
`A.
`
`Senju Timely Objected to and Challenged Mr. Hofmann’s
`Qualifications During Cross Examination
`
`Senju timely objected to EX1122, specifically paragraphs 25-27, 42, 59-60,
`
`62, 69-70, 72-80, 86-87, 99, 102, and 110, under FRE 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65 in
`
`its April 29, 2016, objections.6 Further, during Mr. Hofmann’s cross-examination
`
`on his Reply Declaration (EX2343, 10:5-16:6; 20:17-25:1; 39:4-17; 55:6-59:9;
`
`109:15-110:4), Senju challenged and objected to Mr. Hofmann’s improper
`
`behavior and lack of qualifications necessary to form an opinion under FRE 702.
`
`B. Mr. Hofmann Is Not Qualified to Opine Beyond Economics
`In his declaration in support of the Reply, Mr. Hofmann offers opinions on
`
`technical and medical matters to support his contention that there is allegedly no
`
`nexus between the claimed inventions of the ’290, ’131, ’813, and ’606 patents and
`
`commercial success. Mr. Hofmann, however, completely lacks the relevant
`
`technical or medical expertise or experience
`
`to provide
`
`these opinions.
`
`Accordingly, and as discussed below, Mr. Hofmann’s opinions should be excluded.
`
`During his cross-examination, Patent Owner explored Mr. Hofmann’s lack
`
`of relevant technical and medical expertise, but he refused to answer straight-
`
`
`6 (Paper 40 in IPR2015-1097, IPR2015-01100, and IPR2015-01105, and Paper 39
`
`in IPR2015-1099.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`forward questions, and as a result, was repeatedly impeached. (EX2343, 11:13-
`
`13:6; 13:16-14:19; 23:10-25:1; 55:9-56:7; 57:6-13; 95:12-96:6; 106:16-110:4.)
`
`Despite his defiance, Mr. Hofmann acknowledged that he had no technical
`
`expertise
`
`in pharmaceutical
`
`formulations, ophthalmic
`
`formulations,
`
`the
`
`manufacture of pharmaceuticals, methods of using pharmaceuticals, and FDA
`
`regulations. (EX2343, 20:17-22:11.) He further acknowledged that he 1) is not a
`
`“medical expert,” “legal expert” or “technical expert,” 2) has no expertise in
`
`chemistry, 3) has never formulated or conducted research on a pharmaceutical
`
`product, 4) has never prescribed medicine or treated an inflammatory disease of the
`
`eye, 5) has never tested Prolensa®, 6) has never been qualified as an expert in
`
`clinical benefits of pharmaceutical products, 7) has never practiced pharmacy, and
`
`8) has never conducted or participated a clinical study. (EX2343, 11:13-13:5;
`
`13:10-14:13; 14:20-15:9; 15:21-16:6; 23:10-15; 39:15-17; 57:6-58:6; 87:10-12;
`
`88:6-11; 105:4-13.) Indeed, Mr. Hofmann’s formal education is limited to a
`
`bachelor’s degree in business administration. (EX2343, 10:10-11:6.)
`
`Despite his repeated admissions that he was not a technical or medical
`
`expert, Mr. Hofmann provides opinions directly on these issues. For example, Mr.
`
`Hofmann opines that the efficacy of Prolensa® is attributable to the bromfenac
`
`molecule (EX1122, ¶¶ 72-24), opines that the safety and efficacy of Prolensa is not
`
`improved over Bromday® (EX1122, ¶¶ 75-79), and opines on the prescribing
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`practices of physicians and patient compliance (EX1122, ¶¶ 62, 80, 86, 102). Mr.
`
`Hofmann has absolutely no qualifications, by education or experience, to provide
`
`opinions on these technical and medical issues. Moreover, Mr. Hofmann did not
`
`even speak with any of the technical experts to gain an understanding of the
`
`technical or medical issues relevant to the ’290, ’131, ’813, and ’606 patents.
`
`(EX1122, ¶ 5; EX2343, 52:8-13.) Instead, he simply “[p]erformed independent
`
`research on various topics and issues.” Id.; see Forest Labs., Inc. v. Ivax
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 438 F.Supp. 2d 479, 495 (D. Del. 2006) (rejecting
`
`economic expert testimony where economist did not consult with any physicians in
`
`preparing his opinions).
`
`Mr. Hofmann further asserts in his Reply Declaration that various “other
`
`extrinsic factors” contribute to the commercial success of Prolensa®. (EX1122, ¶¶
`
`81-120). But when asked during his cross-examination what percentage of sales
`
`was the result of these “other extrinsic factors,” Mr. Hofmann could not provide an
`
`answer. (EX2343, 89:2-90:21.) Such haphazard analysis falls well short of the
`
`standard set forth in Rule 702. See Forest Labs., 438 F.Supp. 2d at 495 (rejecting
`
`economic expert testimony where economist could not determine what percentage
`
`of pharmaceutical sales were due to “other factors”). Indeed, multiple courts have
`
`found Mr. Hofmann’s analysis lacking, unreliable, and have rejected his opinions.
`
`(EX2343, 35:3-37:21; 41:11-43:18; 45:20-48:15.) Further, while working as an
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`audit manager for Deloitte, Mr. Hofmann was part of an auditing team that was
`
`later investigated by the SEC. (EX2343, 25:6-33:20; 60:3-68:17.) During that
`
`SEC investigation, Mr. Hofmann provided testimony against the lead partner, who
`
`was ultimately sanctioned by the SEC for failing to comply with certain disclosure
`
`requirements. Id. And throughout his cross examination, Mr. Hofmann defiantly
`
`refused to answer even basic questions, in one instance launching into a page-and-
`
`a-half-long diatribe when simply asked whether a particular judicial opinion
`
`identified him. (EX2343, 46:10-48:8.)
`
`Because Mr. Hofmann is unqualified and not credible, his opinions
`
`expressed in EX1122, specifically at least paragraphs 25-27, 42, 59-60, 62, 69-70,
`
`72-80, 86-87, 99, 102, and 110, are unreliable, irrelevant, and cannot assist the trier
`
`of fact as Fed. R. Evid. 702 requires and should be afforded no weight.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should exclude his testimony from evidence given his
`
`improper behavior and admitted lack of technical and medical expertise.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the reasons set forth above, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant this Motion to Exclude.
`
`Date: May 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Bryan C. Diner/
`
`Bryan C. Diner, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 32,409
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude was filed on May 12, 2016, and served via email
`
`directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner at the following:
`
`Deborah Yellin
`dyellin@crowell.com
`
`Jonathan Lindsay
`jlindsay@crowell.com
`
`Teresa Stanek Rea
`TRea@crowell.com
`
`Chiemi Suzuki
`CSuzuki@crowell.com
`
`Jitendra Malik
`jitty.malik@alston.com
`
`Bryan Skelton, Ph.D.
`Bryan.skelton@alston.com
`
`Lance Soderstrom
`Lance.soderstrom@alston.com
`
`Hitetada James Abe
`James.abe@alston.com
`
`Joseph M. Janusz
`Joe.janusz@alston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Dated: May 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Bradley J. Moore/
`Bradley J. Moore
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

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