throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
`and
`
`LUPIN LTD. and LUPIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`HORIZON THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-011171
`Patent 8,642,012
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00283, instituted on a petition filed by Lupin Ltd. and Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is an Improper Vehicle to
`Address the Permissible Scope of Testimony. ....................................... 1 
`Patent Owner’s Attempt to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr.
`Sondheimer’s Background and Experience and Exhibits 1031
`and 1033 is Unreasonable. ..................................................................... 3 
`Dr. Sondheimer’s Testimony Regarding the Definition of a
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art is Proper. ........................................ 5 
`Patent Owner Should Not be Allowed to Complain about Dr.
`Sondheimer’s Testimony Regarding the Instituted Prior Art. ............... 5 
`Fernandes .................................................................................... 6 
`1. 
`Blau ............................................................................................. 7 
`2. 
`Typical gelatin capsule volume, density and dosage of
`3. 
`sodium phenylbutyrate in Brusilow ’91 ...................................... 8 
`Patent Owner’s Bid to Disqualify Testimony as to the Relevant
`Time Period for a POSA’s Evaluation of Prior Art is Improper. ........... 8 
`III.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9 
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to exclude should be denied because it is both
`
`procedurally and substantively flawed. As to the former, the Board has
`
`consistently held that a motion to exclude is not the proper mechanism to argue
`
`whether new arguments have been raised. Yet Patent Owner seeks to exclude
`
`certain testimony of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Neal Sondheimer, and exhibits used
`
`during his deposition because such evidence is allegedly beyond the scope of his
`
`cross-examination testimony. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s procedural failure
`
`that such arguments are improperly raised in a motion to exclude, the disputed
`
`evidence should not be excluded because Dr. Sondheimer’s deposition testimony
`
`and reliance on certain exhibits respond to topics and, in some cases, the exact
`
`same questions Patent Owner’s counsel raised during cross-examination.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is an Improper Vehicle to
`Address the Permissible Scope of Testimony.
`
`The Board has repeatedly and consistently held that a motion to exclude is
`
`not the proper vehicle for a party to raise the issue of permissible scope of
`
`testimony. See Vibrant Media Inc. v. General Electric Co., No. IPR2013-00170,
`
`slip op. at 31, 2014 WL 2965703 at *19 (P.T.A.B. June 26, 2014); see Lib. Mut.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. CBM2012-00004, 2014 WL 2213411 at
`
`*27 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) (holding that a motion to exclude is not the vehicle to
`
`argue whether new arguments have been raised); see also ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv
`
`Corp., No. IPR2013-00063, Paper 71 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2014). Instead, a
`
`motion to exclude, for example, must state why the evidence is inadmissible (e.g.,
`
`based on relevance or hearsay). See Vibrant Media Inc., No. IPR2013-00170, slip
`
`op. at 31.
`
`Here, Patent Owner seeks to exclude certain deposition testimony and
`
`exhibits used at Dr. Sondheimer’s deposition based on the allegation that such
`
`evidence exceeded the scope of Dr. Sondheimer’s cross-examination testimony.
`
`Patent Owner makes no claim of inadmissibility of such evidence under the
`
`Federal Rules of Evidence. As noted above, a motion to exclude is not the proper
`
`vehicle for a party to raise the issue of permissible scope of testimony.2 Patent
`
`Owner, therefore, wastes the Board’s and Petitioners’ resources by improperly
`
`raising these issues in a motion to exclude. Patent Owner’s motion to exclude
`
`should be denied for at least this reason.
`
`2 As Patent Owner concedes, Petitioner has not attempted to rely upon the
`
`evidence sought to be excluded. (Paper 36 at 2.) As such, Patent Owner’s request
`
`to exclude such evidence is further improper because it is premature at best.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Notwithstanding the foregoing, the testimony of Dr. Sondheimer and
`
`exhibits sought to be excluded do not exceed the scope of evidence permitted by
`
`reply. As discussed below, such evidence is directly responsive to Patent Owner’s
`
`cross-examination questioning.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Attempt to Exclude Testimony Regarding Dr.
`Sondheimer’s Background and Experience and Exhibits 1031 and
`1033 is Unreasonable.
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude Dr. Sondheimer’s testimony about his
`
`qualifications and experience treating UCD patients as well as his updated
`
`curriculum vitae (Exhibit 1031). (Paper 36 at 4-5, 13.) But Dr. Sondheimer
`
`discussed his background and qualifications in his declaration (See Exhibit 1002 at
`
`¶¶ 8-14.) And during his cross examination, Patent Owner’s counsel questioned
`
`Dr. Sondheimer regarding his declaration and his experience treating UCD
`
`patients. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2012 at 4:14-5:10, 19:17-25, 20:2-10, 24:7-13, 128:23-
`
`129:6.) Indeed, Exhibit 1033, is a prior art publication, cited in Dr. Sondheimer’s
`
`declaration in support of the petition (Exhibit 1002 at ¶ 12), where he managed and
`
`treated patients with urea cycle disorders using ammonia scavenging drugs based
`
`on that patient’s fasting ammonia level. Exhibit 1033 is background prior art
`
`reflecting the state of the art at the time. Therefore, Dr. Sondheimer’s testimony
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`about his qualifications, experience, and the state of the art are all within the
`
`purview of his original declaration and the topics raised during cross examination.
`
`Patent Owner argues for the exclusion of Exhibit 1031 and swaths of related
`
`redirect examination testimony simply because Patent Owner did not explicitly
`
`question Dr. Sondheimer on his background and experience during cross-
`
`examination. But Patent Owner’s argument,
`
`if accepted, would allow
`
`gamesmanship
`
`to preclude
`
`the
`
`introduction of
`
`indisputably
`
`relevant
`
`evidence. Patent Owner’s position further strains credulity because Exhibit 1031 is
`
`just an updated version of Dr. Sondheimer’s curriculum vitae, which, well prior to
`
`Dr. Sondheimer’s deposition, was served on Patent Owner along with Dr.
`
`Sondheimer’s declaration and was
`
`filed with
`
`the Board as Exhibit
`
`1003. Moreover, Patent Owner placed Dr. Sondheimer’s background and
`
`experience within the ambit of Par’s redirect examination when it questioned Dr.
`
`Sondheimer regarding his declaration (see, e.g., Exhibit 2012 at 4:14-6:11), which
`
`includes an entire section on his background and qualifications as well as his
`
`attached curriculum vitae. Because Patent Owner has failed to state a cogent
`
`reason why a clearly relevant exhibit - indeed one that is merely a routine update of
`
`a previous exhibit - should be excluded, Petitioners respectfully request that the
`
`Board deny Patent Owner’s attempt to exclude Exhibit 1031.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`C. Dr. Sondheimer’s Testimony Regarding the Definition of a Person
`of Ordinary Skill in the Art is Proper.
`
`Patent Owner next tries to exclude Dr. Sondheimer’s testimony regarding a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. (Paper 36 at 6-7.) Again, not only does Dr.
`
`Sondheimer’s declaration define a person of ordinary skill in the art (Exhibit 1002
`
`at ¶ 24.), but Patent Owner’s counsel specifically questioned Dr. Sondheimer about
`
`how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand certain of the instituted
`
`prior art references. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2012 at 4:19-11:10, 19:7-14, 26:4-11, 28:9-
`
`31:8.) Dr. Sondheimer’s testimony about his definition of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art and whether he qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art is the
`
`foundational predicate to Patent Owner’s questions regarding how a POSA would
`
`interpret the instituted prior art. Moreover, Dr. Sondheimer set forth his
`
`qualifications and his definition of a POSA in his declaration in support of the
`
`petition and, as such, there is no prejudice to Patent Owner even if such testimony
`
`were considered to be outside the scope of cross examination.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner Should Not be Allowed to Complain about Dr.
`Sondheimer’s Testimony Regarding the Instituted Prior Art.
`
`Despite opening the door and exhaustively questioning Dr. Sondheimer
`
`regarding the Fernandes, Blau, and Brusilow ’91 references, Patent Owner now
`
`protests his testimony during re-direct examination about those very same topics.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`As explained below, each snippet of testimony Patent Owner criticizes as beyond
`
`the scope of cross-examination directly rebuts questioning by Patent Owner’s
`
`counsel.
`
`Fernandes
`
`1.
`Patent Owner alleges that Dr. Sondheimer improperly testified on re-direct
`
`regarding other chapters of Fernandes (Chapter 17), whether a POSA would
`
`currently use the guidelines in Figure 17.2 of Fernandes to treat UCD patients, and
`
`whether a POSA would have specific disagreements with its teachings. (Paper 36
`
`at 7-8.)
`
`Patent Owner’s allegations that Dr. Sondheimer testified about “other
`
`chapters” is disingenuous. Dr. Sondheimer did not testify about other chapters.
`
`Rather, Dr. Sondheimer merely authenticated the portion of Fernandes he relied
`
`upon as shown by his testimony below:
`
`Q. And other than chapter 17 of Fernandes from which figure 17.2 comes,
`
`do other chapters concern urea cycle disorder?
`
`MS. SIMIC: Objection to scope.
`
`THE DEPONENT: No. This is the chapter [17] that was written to discuss
`
`the defects of the urea cycle.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`(Exhibit 2012 at 242:10-16.) There simply was no other testimony by Dr.
`
`Sondheimer about any other chapters in Fernandes and, as such, Patent Owner’s
`
`complaint rings hollow.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s objections regarding whether a POSA would currently use
`
`Figure 17.2 or have any disagreements about Fernandes is similarly misplaced.
`
`Patent Owner’s counsel specifically asked Dr. Sondheimer whether he himself
`
`referred to Fernandes in treating UCD patients. (Exhibit 2012 at 128:23-129:6)
`
`(asking Dr. Sondheimer if he “had cause to refer to Fernandes for guidance in
`
`treating UCD patients”). And Patent Owner’s counsel also queried Dr.
`
`Sondheimer whether he disagreed with any part of chapter 17 of Fernandes.
`
`(Exhibit 2012 at 129:7-15) (asking “is there any parts of chapter 17 that you
`
`disagree with”). As shown by the testimony, Patent Owner’s attempt to now object
`
`to these topics is contemptible because these exact topics and/or questions were
`
`first posed by Patent Owner.
`
`Blau
`
`2.
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Sondheimer’s re-examination testimony
`
`concerning hypothetical deviations from the specimen collection guidelines set
`
`forth in Table 11.9 of Blau is impermissible. (Paper 36 at 11-12.) Patent Owner
`
`carelessly makes this argument in its motion to exclude, but the Blau reference is
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`not a prior art reference the Board instituted review on in this IPR. Rather, Blau is
`
`a prior art reference of record in the ’215 patent IPR (IPR2015-01127).
`
`3.
`
`Typical gelatin capsule volume, density and dosage of sodium
`phenylbutyrate in Brusilow ’91
`
`Patent Owner complains about Dr. Sondheimer’s testimony regarding
`
`typical gelatin capsule volume, density of sodium phenylbutyrate, and the
`
`calculation of the amount of sodium phenylbutyrate dosed in Brusilow ’91. (Paper
`
`36 at 9-10.) Dr. Sondheimer cites extensively to Brusilow ’91 in his declaration to
`
`illustrate what a POSA would have understood as of the priority date of the patent,
`
`including extensive discussions regarding dosage adjustments based on using a
`
`target amount of urinary PAGN to calculate the dose of sodium phenylbutyrate.
`
`(See, e.g., Exhibit 1002 at ¶¶ 33-36). Patent Owner therefore cannot argue that the
`
`testimony and reliance on Exhibit 1032, which provides the density and molecular
`
`weight for sodium phenylbutyrate, is outside the permissible scope.
`
`E.
`
`Patent Owner’s Bid to Disqualify Testimony as to the Relevant
`Time Period for a POSA’s Evaluation of Prior Art is Improper.
`
`Patent Owner disputes the propriety of Dr. Sondheimer’s re-direct testimony
`
`as to the relevant time period regarding the rate of conversion of PAA to PAGN.
`
`(Paper 36 at 10-11.) Patent Owner’s objection is ill-founded because Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel specifically asked Dr. Sondheimer about the rate of conversion
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`found in the various prior art references relied upon and relevant time period for
`
`the same. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2012 at 5:13-17, 5:22-6:5 (asking whether “prior to
`
`August, 2008, a POSA would not have expected the amount of conversion of PAA
`
`to PAGN in healthy subjects to be the same as that in a urea cycle disorder
`
`patient”), 10:17-11:2, 26:20-27:8, 28:9-18 (asking about what time period a POSA
`
`would have considered relevant for determining the rate of conversion). Moreover,
`
`the relevant time period for a POSA’s evaluation of the conversion of PAA to
`
`PAGN is implicit in Sondheimer’s definition of a POSA, which is recited in his
`
`declaration and refers to the alleged priority date for the ’012 patent. (See Exhibit
`
`1029 at ¶ 29.) Therefore, not only did Patent Owner first raise the topic it now
`
`seeks to exclude but it was also within the scope of Dr. Sondheimer’s declaration
`
`in support of the petition. To that end, Patent Owner’s request to exclude Dr.
`
`Sondheimer’s testimony should be rejected.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`deny in its entirety Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Petitioners’ Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`David H. Silverstein
`Registration No. 61,948
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`/Cynthia Lambert Hardman/
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`Registration No. 53,179
`Attorney for the Lupin
`Petitioners
`
`Date: June 30, 2016
`Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`950 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 912-4700
`
`
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018
`Tel: (212) 813-8800
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
` IPR2015-01117
`Patent No. 8,642,012
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Petitioners’
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence” was served in its
`
`entirety on June 30, 2016 through the Patent Review Processing System, and
`
`additionally upon the following parties via Electronic Mail:
`
`For Patent Owner:
`
`For Petitioner Lupin:
`
`Elizabeth J. Holland
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`eholland@goodwinproctor.com
`chardman@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`David H. Silverstein
`Registration No. 61,948
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`Lauren Stevens:
`lstevens@horizonpharma.com
`Matthew C. Phillips:
`matthew.phillips@renaissanceiplaw.com
`Dennis Bennett:
`dennisbennett@globalpatentgroup.com
`
`Robert Green:
`rgreen@greengriffith.com
`Emer Simic: esimic@greengriffith.com
`Jessica Tyrus: jtyrus@greengriffith.com
`
`
`Date: June 30, 2016
`Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP
`950 F Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 912-4700
`
`
`
`
`
`1

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