`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`AUROBINDO PHARMA U.S.A., INC.,
`SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
`SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE and
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ASTRAZENECA AB,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case: IPR2015-013401
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,186
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFOREST MCDUFF
`
`
`
`
`1 Petitioner Wockhardt from IPR2016-01029, Petitioner Teva from IPR2016-
`01122, Petitioner Aurobindo from IPR2016-01117, and Petitioners Sun/Amneal
`from IPR2016-01104 have been added as Petitioners to this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner AstraZeneca AB submits this Motion for Observations
`
`Regarding Cross-Examination of DeForest McDuff pursuant to the Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper No. 17) and the Joint Notice of Stipulation (Paper No. 57).
`
`Observation #1 - In Ex. 2220 at 15:14-16:3, Dr. McDuff testified that he did
`
`not review the entirety of the record generated in the parallel district court
`
`proceeding involving the RE’186 patent on the issue of commercial success. This
`
`testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration
`
`and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060, 1060A;
`
`Reply at 24-27), specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given to his
`
`statements and conclusions because it raises concerns that he has not considered all
`
`relevant information on the issue of commercial success.
`
`Observation #2 - In Ex. 2220 at 16:8-20:20, Dr. McDuff testified that he
`
`reviewed Dr. Meyer’s cross-examination but not her direct examination; he also
`
`testified that he reviewed Dr. Hofmann’s expert report but not Dr. Meyer’s expert
`
`report. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060,
`
`1060A; Reply at 24-27), specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given
`
`to his statements and conclusions because it raises concerns that he selectively
`
`considered information on the issue of commercial success.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #3 - In Ex. 2220 at 53:3-54:7, Dr. McDuff testified that he has
`
`never testified that a branded pharmaceutical product is commercially successful.
`
`This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060,
`
`1060A; Reply at 24-27), specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given
`
`to his statements and conclusions because it raises concerns regarding his
`
`impartiality and credibility.
`
`Observation #4 - In Ex. 2220 at 161:1-2 and 161:18-162:3, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he obtained his Ph.D. in 2009 and has never authored any publications
`
`of the issue of commercial success or presented on the issue of commercial success
`
`in any of his speaking engagements. This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding
`
`commercial success (Exs. 1060, 1060A; Reply at 24-27), specifically, to the weight
`
`and understanding to be given to his statements and conclusions because it raises
`
`concerns regarding his credibility and the level of his expertise on the issue of
`
`commercial success.
`
`Observation #5 - In Ex. 2220 at 52:4-13 and 69:4-14, Dr. McDuff testified
`
`that he understood that the patent owner has the burden of proof on commercial
`
`success. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`1060A; Reply at 24-27), specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given
`
`to his statements and conclusions because it raises concerns that he applied the
`
`wrong burdens of proof in his opinions.
`
`Observation #6 - In Ex. 2220 at 47:24-50:25, Dr. McDuff testified that he
`
`understood that commercial success must be attributed to the novel parts of the
`
`invention and not to factors unrelated or already known. In Ex. 2220 at 117:24-
`
`118:5, Dr. McDuff also testified that saxagliptin’s status as the first-invented,
`
`FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitor was not a primary consideration. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’
`
`Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶¶ 29-34; Reply at
`
`26), specifically, because it raises concerns that his assertions that Onglyza and
`
`Kombiglyze are not particularly differentiated or unique products does not take
`
`into account saxagliptin’s status as the first-invented, FDA-approved DPP-4
`
`inhibitor.
`
`Observation #7 - In Ex. 2220 at 21:6-13, 22:17-25:25, 28:6-31:15, and
`
`35:16-36:5, Dr. McDuff testified that he did not dispute any of the calculations in
`
`Tables 2(a), 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 6(b), 7, and 8 of Dr. Meyer’s declaration (Ex. 2059,
`
`2059A). This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060,
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1060A; Reply at 24-27), specifically, because it establishes that he does not dispute
`
`any of the data on which Dr. Meyer bases her opinions.
`
`Observation #8 - In Ex. 2220 at 62:2-66:14, Dr. McDuff testified that it did
`
`not make sense to him to characterize $2.5 billion in net revenue as substantial
`
`without drawing any comparisons. In Ex. 2220 at 69:15:70:14, Dr. McDuff also
`
`testified that he did not seek to provide a “complete guidance or set of opinions on
`
`what one could compare saxagliptin revenues to.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’ Reply
`
`brief regarding commercial success (Exs. 1060, 1060A; Reply at 24-27),
`
`specifically, because it raises concerns that he has not offered an opinion on what
`
`is the relevant market in his opinions on commercial success.
`
`Observation #9 - In Ex. 2220 at 42:15-17, Dr. McDuff testified that he was
`
`not providing opinions in rebuttal to Dr. Lenhard’s declaration. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration regarding Dr.
`
`Lenhard’s opinion that vildagliptin is a failure because it was not approved by the
`
`FDA and is approved in Europe with a twice-daily dosing regimen and significant
`
`safety precautions due to liver toxicity (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶ 18), specifically, to the
`
`weight and understanding to be given to his statements and conclusions because it
`
`establishes that his opinions on the issue of commercial success do not address Dr.
`
`Lenhard’s opinions on the issue of failures of others.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #10 - In Ex. 2220 at 75:20-76:2, Dr. McDuff testified that he
`
`did not study the relative efforts of AstraZeneca and Novartis to promote and
`
`market saxagliptin-containing products and vildagliptin-containing products
`
`outside of the United States. This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding
`
`vildagliptin-containing products having more worldwide annual and cumulative
`
`sales than saxagliptin-containing products (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶ 18; Reply at 25),
`
`specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given to his statements and
`
`conclusions because it establishes that he has not considered Novartis’s efforts to
`
`promote and market vildagliptin-containing products in his opinions on
`
`commercial success.
`
`Observation #11 - In Ex. 2220 at 82:5-83:25 and 112:7-15, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that Merck’s Januvia had a first-mover advantage that “tended to be
`
`stronger” and was “impactful.” This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`conclusions in Dr. Meyer’s declaration regarding Onglyza’s ability to garner and
`
`maintain a substantial market share in a marketplace with a product with a
`
`substantial first-mover advantage (Ex. 2059, 2059A ¶¶ 42-43), specifically,
`
`because it provides context for analyzing the Onglyza family’s ability to reach a
`
`market share of almost 20 percent of monthly total dispensed prescriptions.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #12 - In Ex. 2220 at 91:20-92:10 and 95:15-96:6, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he did not have any data that would allow for a calculation of the cost
`
`of commercializing Onglyza and Kombiglyze. This testimony is relevant to
`
`statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration regarding the “expected
`
`cost of commercializing Onglyza and Kombiglyze” (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶¶ 23-24),
`
`specifically, to the weight and understanding to be given to his statements and
`
`conclusions because it raises concerns regarding the bases for his proposed
`
`“expected cost of commercializing Onglyza and Kombiglyze.”
`
`Observation #13 - In Ex. 2220 at 100:4-14, Dr. McDuff testified that as
`
`compared to how much AstraZeneca spent promoting the Onglyza family products,
`
`Merck spent approximately twice as much promoting the Januvia family products.
`
`This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding sales of the Januvia family of
`
`products (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶¶ 18, 30, 32; Reply at 25-26), specifically, because it
`
`provides context for analyzing the Onglyza family’s sales and market share.
`
`Observation #14 - In Ex. 2220 at 125:8-12 and 127:25-128:22, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he did not consider whether the increased risk of hospitalization for
`
`heart failure was published prior to the 2016 FDA warning but that prior
`
`publication of the increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure would lessen
`
`the impact of the 2016 FDA warning. This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration regarding the “likely decline” in sales of
`
`Onglyza and Kombiglyze (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶¶ 35-37), specifically, to the weight
`
`and understanding to be given to his statements and conclusions because it
`
`establishes that his opinions regarding the “likely decline” in sales of Onglyza and
`
`Kombiglyze did not take into account the prior publication of the increased risk of
`
`hospitalization for heart failure.
`
`Observation #15 - In Ex. 2220 at 132:14-135:5 and 134:8-16, Dr. McDuff
`
`testified that he did not know the net sales adjustments or managed market rebates
`
`for vildagliptin specifically. In Ex. 2220 at 136:14-137:7, Dr. McDuff also
`
`testified that he did not know what percentage of Novartis’s net sales were from
`
`vildagliptin. In Ex. 2220 at 136:14-137:7, Dr. McDuff further testified that net
`
`sales adjustments vary across pharmaceutical companies, therapeutic areas, and
`
`even within the same therapeutic class. This testimony is relevant to statements
`
`and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding
`
`the net sales adjustments and managed market rebates for Onglyza and
`
`Kombiglyze as compared to the net sales adjustments and managed market rebates
`
`for Novartis’s “pharmaceutical products.” Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶¶ 41-43; Reply at
`
`24-25. Specifically, this testimony is relevant to the weight and understanding to
`
`be given to Dr. McDuff’s statements and conclusions because it raises concerns
`
`regarding the appropriateness and relevance of his comparison of the net sales
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`adjustments and managed market rebates for Onglyza and Kombiglyze to
`
`Novartis’s “pharmaceutical products.”
`
`Observation #16 - In Ex. 2220 at 145:14-146:7, Dr. McDuff testified that it
`
`may be possible that the rebate for Januvia may have been higher than the rebate
`
`for Onglyza. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr.
`
`McDuff’s declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding the net sales
`
`adjustments and managed market rebates for Onglyza and Kombiglyze (Exs. 1060,
`
`1060A ¶¶ 41-43; Reply at 24-25), specifically, because it provides context for
`
`analyzing how comparable the net sales adjustments and managed market rebates
`
`for Onglyza and Kombiglyze are to those for other DPP-4 inhibitors.
`
`Observation #17 - In Ex. 2220 at 151:2-11, Dr. McDuff testified that from
`
`2011 through 2015, promotional expenditures for the Onglyza family totaled
`
`approximately $398 million whereas promotional expenditures for the Tradjenta
`
`family totaled approximately $460 million. In Ex. 2220 at 151:12-21, Dr. McDuff
`
`also testified that from 2011 through 2015, the Onglyza family garnered 15.5% of
`
`prescription shares whereas the Tradjenta family garnered 7.4% of prescription
`
`shares. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. McDuff’s
`
`declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding the performance of the Tradjenta
`
`family (Exs. 1060, 1060A ¶ 31; Reply at 26-27), specifically, to whether the
`
`Onglyza family has underperformed relative to the Tradjenta family.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Anthony A. Hartmann/
`Anthony A. Hartmann, Reg. No. 43,662
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
`Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington DC 20001
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that copies of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF DEFOREST MCDUFF was served electronically via e-
`
`mail on December 12, 2016, in its entirety to the following:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Jad A. Mills
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Douglas H. Carsten
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Wockhardt BIO AG.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick Gallagher
`PCGallagher@duanemorris.com
`
`Gary Speier
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Iain McIntyre
`imcintyre@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc..:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc..:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sailesh K. Patel
`SPatel@schiffhardin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`George Yu
`GYu@schiffhardin.com
`
`Samuel Park
`SPark@winston.com
`
`Andrew Sommer
`ASommer@winston.com
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Sun/Amneal: