`Filed: June 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`Patent Owner Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) hereby opposes Petitioner
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI LLC’s (“CFAD”) motion to exclude certain
`
`testimony from its declarant, Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, and Celgene’s reliance on the same
`
`in its Patent Owner Response. See Paper 64.
`
`CFAD seeks to exclude highly relevant testimony in which Dr. Fudin
`
`admitted that CFAD’s proposed person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would
`
`not have been able to design or implement the claimed inventions. See id.
`
`According to CFAD, the testimony that it seeks to exclude is irrelevant
`
`because Celgene allegedly argues that the challenged patent “claims systems, when
`
`in fact [it] only claims methods for delivering a drug to a patient.” Id. at 1.
`
`CFAD’s motion relies on the false premise that Dr. Fudin was “confus[ed]”
`
`regarding Celgene’s alleged “undefined reference to ‘systems’” during Dr. Fudin’s
`
`deposition. Id. at 2. But as explained below, the full testimony that CFAD seeks
`
`to exclude shows that there was no such confusion. Nor were the “system[s]”
`
`discussed during Dr. Fudin’s deposition “undefined,” as CFAD alleges. Id.
`
`Dr. Fudin understood the questions, and also understood what is claimed in the
`
`challenged patent; he simply answered Celgene’s questions in a way that harms
`
`CFAD’s case by demonstrating that CFAD’s proposed POSA is incorrect.
`
`Indeed, Celgene started the line of questioning that CFAD seeks to exclude
`
`by clearly defining what is claimed and what is meant by “system[s]” within the
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`testimony:
`
`Q. But let me be clear. The claims of the patent are talking about
`
`methods that involve distribution from start to finish, from the
`
`manufacturer to the patient, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Okay. If we’re designing such a system for dangerous drugs and
`
`the goal and the focus of the entire patent is on avoiding adverse
`
`events associated with such dangerous drugs, right?
`
`A. Right.
`
`Q. If we’re looking at who the POSA is in that circumstance, I’m
`
`trying to understand why you think in that circumstance all we need is
`
`a pharmacy – a pharmacist?
`
`A. Because the pharmacist doesn’t need to design those systems.
`
`The pharmacist needs to know how to use those systems in real time.
`
`And they use those systems.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Q. So your pharmacist POSA does not need to be able to design the
`
`full system claimed in the ’501 patent?
`
`A. They don’t need to know how to design it, no.
`
`Q. And they don’t need to know how to design the full system
`
`claimed in the ’720 patent?
`
`A. No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Q. And you had said your POSA did not need to be able to design the
`
`claimed systems, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`Ex. 2061 at 199:10-200:3, 201:1-10, 328:25-329:2 (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`the use of “system[s]” clearly refers to the claimed methods because Celgene
`
`referred to the claimed methods as “such a system.” Dr. Fudin was not
`
`confused. At no point did he say or even indicate that he was unsure about
`
`whether the “system[s]” being discussed were explicitly referring to the
`
`claimed methods.
`
`Instead, Dr. Fudin admitted that the claims of the patents-at-issue cover
`
`certain systems for controlling distribution of dangerous drugs like thalidomide:
`
`Q. You don’t have any reason to believe that the three systems we’re
`
`talking about here – original S.T.E.P.S., S.T.E.P.S., Enhanced
`
`S.T.E.P.S., and the Thalomid REMS – you don’t have any reason to
`
`believe that the claims of the ’501 and ’720 patent do not cover those
`
`three specific systems, right?
`
`A. I believe they’re all covered.
`
`Ex. 2061 at 73:1-8. Dr. Fudin unequivocally understood what is claimed.1
`
`Instead of acknowledging Dr. Fudin’s understanding, CFAD seeks to
`
`conflate the fact that he did not know why he was being asked if CFAD’s proposed
`
`
`1 Notably, Dr. Fudin alleges that his expertise is in distribution systems, further
`
`emphasizing that methods and systems for restricting distribution of dangerous
`
`pharmaceuticals are interchangeable in this case. See Ex. 1027 ¶13.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`POSA could design the claimed inventions (see Paper 64 at 2 (citing Ex. 2061 at
`
`200:4-17)) with his understanding of what the claimed “system” was. But as
`
`evidenced from the testimony, Dr. Fudin clearly understood what was claimed and
`
`what he was being asked regarding the claims, and whether his proposed POSA
`
`could have designed what is claimed. CFAD’s motion should be denied. See
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022, 2014 WL 4381564, at
`
`*33-34 (Sept. 2, 2014) (denying motion to exclude declarant testimony that was
`
`premised on alleged witness confusion).
`
`Indeed, if anything, the fact that Dr. Fudin did not understand why he was
`
`being asked certain questions merely highlights his unfamiliarity with how to
`
`define a POSA. Indeed, Dr. Fudin testified that he arrived at his definition of a
`
`POSA by “Googl[ing] it,” or going “back to a previous deposition and look[ing] at
`
`what [he] put down as a POSA.” See Ex. 2061 at 161:17-163:12.
`
`Here, Dr. Fudin repeatedly admitted that CFAD’s proposed POSA would
`
`not have been capable of designing or implementing the claimed inventions. See
`
`id. at 193:12-194:10, 201:1-10, 246:17-247:2, 328:19-329:9. Instead, as CFAD
`
`admits, at most, Dr. Fudin testified that CFAD’s proposed POSA allegedly
`
`“‘could’ design successful methods for risk management in delivering medication
`
`by drawing upon the support of a ‘multi-disciplinary team.’” See Paper 64 at 2-3.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`Of course, this has nothing to do with his proposed POSA or the specific claims at
`
`issue here.
`
`Federal Circuit law requires that the POSA be able to develop the claimed
`
`invention. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). Whether CFAD’s proposed POSA could design an unspecified “risk
`
`management program that was successful” is irrelevant to whether the POSA could
`
`design the inventions at issue here. In contrast, the testimony that CFAD seeks to
`
`exclude is directly relevant to whether CFAD’s proposed POSA would have been
`
`able to develop the claimed inventions and, thus, directly relevant to who is the
`
`correct POSA. CFAD’s motion should be denied.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Opposition to Motion to Exclude
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2016
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` Andrew S. Chalson (pro hac vice)
` Eric C. Stops (Reg. No. 51,163)
` Frank C. Calvosa (Reg. No. 69,064)
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
` SULLIVAN, LLP
` 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
` New York, NY 10010
` Tel: (212) 849-7000
` Fax: (212) 849-7100
` nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
` ericstops@quinnemanuel.com
` andrewchalson@quinnemanuel.com
` frankcalvosa@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Anthony M. Insogna (Reg. No. 35,203)
`J. Patrick Elsevier (Reg. No. 44,668)
`JONES DAY
`12265 El Camino Real
`Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 314-1200
`Fax: (858) 314-1150
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`jpelsevier@jonesday.com
`
`Gasper J. LaRosa
`JONES DAY
`222 E 41st Street
`New York, NY 10017
`Tel: (212) 326-3939
`Fax: (212) 755-7306
`gjlarosa@jonesday.com
`
`Attorneys for Celgene Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS VI LLC
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01103
`Patent 6,315,720
`________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that PATENT
`
`OWNER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on June 30,
`
`2016 by filing this document through the Patent Review Processing System, as
`
`well as e-mailing a copy to sabdullah@skiermontderby.com,
`
`sspires@skiermontderby.com, pkota@skiermontderby.com, and
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)/
` F. Dominic Cerrito (Reg. No. 38,100)
` QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
` SULLIVAN, LLP
` 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
` New York, NY 10010
` General Tel: (212) 849-7000
`Fax: (212) 849-7100
`nickcerrito@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Lead Counsel for
`Celgene Corporation
`
`
`
`pskiermont@skiermontderby.com.
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2016