`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`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 DAVID P. ROTELLA
`
`
`
`
`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 the Cross-Examination of David P. Rotella pursuant to the Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper No. 17) and the Joint Notice of Stipulation (Paper No. 57).
`
`Observation #1 - In Ex. 2221 at 12:3-13:6, Dr. Rotella testified that the two
`
`DPP-4 inhibitors in the clinic at the time of the inventions of the RE’186 patent
`
`contained an N-linked P2 group (NVP-DPP728) or no electrophile on the P1 group
`
`(P32/98). See Ex. 2226. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions
`
`in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding selection of
`
`a lead compound (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 10-16; Reply at 10-13), specifically, to the
`
`structural solutions to the known problem of intramolecular cyclization.
`
`Observation #2 - In Ex. 2221 at 13:20-24 and 15:3-6, Dr. Rotella testified
`
`that Ashworth does not use the term “bulky,” but rather says “beta branched,” to
`
`describe P2 groups in Ashworth I (Ex. 1007). This testimony is relevant to
`
`assertions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding Ashworth I (Ex. 1074 ¶ 19),
`
`specifically, to his assertion that Ashworth I describes and teaches the advantages
`
`of “bulkier” P2 groups.
`
`Observation #3 - In Ex. 2221 at 15:13-16:11, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2261 correctly depicts Compounds 25 and 28 of Ashworth I (Ex. 1007). This
`
`testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration
`
`and the Reply brief regarding Compound 28 (Ex. 1074 ¶ 24; Reply at 14-15),
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`specifically, to the correctness of his assertion that Ashworth I describes and
`
`teaches stability advantages of “bulkier” P2 groups, since Compound 28, despite
`
`the size of its P2 group, is “clearly less stable compared to Compound 25.”
`
`Observation #4 - In Ex. 2221 at 16:21-17:17, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2223 correctly depicts the structural differences between a tertiary and quaternary
`
`β-carbon. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration regarding β-branching (Ex. 1074 ¶ 23), specifically, it demonstrates
`
`that the isoleucyl and cyclohexyl derivatives contain a tertiary β-carbon, whereas
`
`saxagliptin contains a quaternary β-carbon like the t-butyl derivative.
`
`Observation #5 - In Ex. 2221 at 18:7-19:2 and 19:14-20:4, Dr. Rotella
`
`testified that Mentlein (Ex. 2096) relates to the natural substrates for DPP-4,
`
`molecules that DPP-4 cleaves, and discloses that these substrates contain tyrosine
`
`and histidine at the P2 position. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr.
`
`Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding the teachings of Mentlein (Ex. 1074 ¶ 19),
`
`specifically, because he admitted that none of the prior art compounds he relied
`
`upon used tyrosine (hydroxyphenyl group) or histidine (imidazole group)—which
`
`Mentlein referred to as “bulky groups”—in the P2 position.
`
`Observation #6 - In Ex. 2221 at 20:22-21:23, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`Villhauer-1998 (Ex. 1008) included adamantyl in one of many hundreds of “even
`
`more preferred compounds.” In Ex. 2221 at 22:3-21, Dr. Rotella also testified that
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2263 correctly depicts the structures of and data for Examples 1, 3, 5, 8, and
`
`12, which Villhauer-1998 identifies as its preferred agents. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the
`
`Reply brief regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 18, 20; Reply at
`
`13-15), specifically, to whether one of ordinary skill would have selected
`
`adamantyl over the many hundreds of other even more preferred P2 groups from
`
`Villhauer-1998.
`
`Observation #7 - In Ex. 2221 at 22:23-23:20, Dr. Rotella testified that,
`
`though Villhauer-1998’s (Ex. 1008) DPP-4 inhibitors are N-linked, he had no
`
`opinion as to whether the P2 groups of N-linked DPP-4 inhibitors will occupy a
`
`different position in space than the P2 groups of C-linked DPP-4 inhibitors (see
`
`Ex. 2259). This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr.
`
`Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the Reply brief regarding modifications of
`
`Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 17-24; Reply at 13-15), specifically, to whether he did
`
`not consider if there was unpredictability or a reasonable expectation of success in
`
`moving the P2 group from a stable N-linked DPP-4 inhibitor to a C-linked DPP-4
`
`inhibitor.
`
`Observation #8 - In Ex. 2221 at 24:7-16, Dr. Rotella testified that, despite
`
`stability being a feature one has to pay attention to, he was not asked to provide
`
`opinions or comment on the stability of the compounds disclosed in Villhauer-
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`1998 (Ex. 1008). This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr.
`
`Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the Reply brief regarding the selection of a lead
`
`compound and modification of Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 17-24; Reply at 13-15),
`
`specifically, to whether he did not consider the known solutions to stability in
`
`selecting his lead compound and to whether there was unpredictability or a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in moving the P2 group from a stable N-linked
`
`DPP-4 inhibitor to a C-linked DPP-4 inhibitor.
`
`Observation #9 - In Ex. 2221 at 25:3-27:12, Dr. Rotella testified that he
`
`investigated N-linked DPP-4 inhibitors, including those with a cyano group, after
`
`the invention of saxagliptin while at Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”). See Ex. 2260.
`
`This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration and the Reply brief regarding selection of a lead compound (Ex. 1074
`
`¶¶ 10-16; Reply at 10-13), specifically, to whether he did not consider the N-linked
`
`DPP-4 inhibitors in selecting his lead compound.
`
`Observation #10 – In Ex. 2221 at 29:19-30:1, Dr. Rotella testified that both
`
`Augustyns-1997 (Ex. 2151) and Ashworth II (Ex. 2001) have data indicating that
`
`use of a 6-membered ring in a pyrrolidine or cyanopyrrolidine-based DPP-4
`
`inhibitor substantially reduces activity. See also Ex. 2221 at 28:16-29:10; Exs.
`
`2228 and 2230. In Ex. 2221 at 30:3-31:8 and 32:12-15, Dr. Rotella also testified
`
`that a 4,5-cyclopropyl-cyanopyrrolidine is named as a 6-membered ring. See Exs.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`2256 and 2258. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr.
`
`Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the Reply brief regarding modifications of
`
`Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 35-47; Reply at 16-18), specifically, to the correctness
`
`of his assertion that one of ordinary skill would have cyclopropanated Compound
`
`25 with a reasonable expectation of success and to whether he did not consider if
`
`there was unpredictability.
`
`Observation #11 - In Ex. 2221 at 33:3-34:1 and 41:6-9, Dr. Rotella testified
`
`that Ashworth characterized the 4-cyanothiazolidine ring of Compound 3 as the
`
`optimal P1 group and characterized the stability of Compounds 3 and 5 as “good.”
`
`See also Ex. 2221 at 32:17-33:2; Ex. 2231; Ex. 2056 ¶ 166. In Ex. 2221 at 34:18-
`
`37:18, Dr. Rotella also testified that he disagreed with characterizing this
`
`difference in activity as substantial but acknowledged that he had previously
`
`characterized a similar difference in activity within his own work as a “substantial
`
`improvement.” See Ex. 2254. This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the Reply brief regarding
`
`selection of a lead compound (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 10-16; Reply at 10-13), specifically, to
`
`whether Compound 25 would have been selected as a lead compound in view of
`
`Ashworth’s determination of cyanothiazolidines (e.g. Compound 3) as optimal.
`
`Observation #12 - In Ex. 2221 at 38:4-9, 38:13-15, and 41:6-14, Dr. Rotella
`
`testified that in Ex. 2232, Compound 3 (described as optimal) and Compound 4
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`both have a sulfur atom in the P1 ring but that Compound 3 has a Ki value
`
`approximately four times lower (more potent) than Compound 4. In Ex. 2221 at
`
`38:10-12 and 38:16-39:3, Dr. Rotella also testified that he did not know what
`
`contributed to that difference but that both P1 rings are the same size. This
`
`testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration
`
`and the Reply brief regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶ 40;
`
`Reply at 16-180), specifically, to whether Ashworth II teaches that increases in
`
`ring size are allowed.
`
`Observation #13 - In Ex. 2221 at 43:12-45:15, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`Villhauer proposed using a 4-cyanothiazolidide P1 group with an N-linked P2
`
`group, and one of these compounds (Ex. 3) had an IC50 for human or rat plasma
`
`DPP-4 of 3 nM. Ex. 2158. He also testified that he was not asked to opine on
`
`anything about Novartis’s approach, conclusions, or opinions. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and
`
`Petitioners’ Reply brief regarding selection of a lead compound (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 10-
`
`16; Reply at 10-13), specifically, to whether Compound 25 would not have been
`
`selected as a lead compound in view of Ashworth’s determination of
`
`cyanothiazolidines (e.g. Compound 3) as optimal.
`
`Observation #14 - In Ex. 2221 at 49:5-49:16, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`Augustyns-1997 (Ex. 2151) teaches that the pyrrolidine ring would prefer
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`hydrogen compared to anything else and that only a small substituent such as
`
`fluorine is allowed. See also Ex. 2221 at 46:10-47:1, 47:11-13; Ex. 2229. In Ex.
`
`2221 at 46:19-51:13 and 51:25-54:15, Dr. Rotella also testified that a substituent at
`
`the 3-position on a pyrrolidine ring and at the 4-position on a cyanopyrrolidine ring
`
`are at the same location on the ring. Exs. 2257 and 2257A. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the
`
`Reply brief regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 35-47; Reply at
`
`16-18), specifically, to whether there was unpredictability or a reasonable
`
`expectation of success when substituting the cyanopyrrolidine ring of a C-linked
`
`DPP-4 inhibitor.
`
`Observation #15 - In Ex. 2221 at 58:19-59:11, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`Augustyns-1997 (Ex. 2151) taught that introducing a double bond (e.g., Compound
`
`9B) would flatten and rigidify the ring. In Ex. 2221 at 58:8-18, Dr. Rotella also
`
`testified that Ex. 2233 correctly depicts the structures and loss in potency resulting
`
`from flattening and rigidifying the ring. See also Ex. 2056 ¶ 179. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration and the
`
`Reply brief regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 35-47; Reply at
`
`16-18), specifically, to the correctness of his assertion that one of ordinary skill
`
`would have cyclopropanated Compound 25 with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success and to whether he did not consider if there was unpredictability.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #16 - In Ex. 2221 at 63:23-65:23, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`cyclopropanation of ACE inhibitors did not have a significant impact on activity
`
`nor did increasing the ring size from 5 to 6. In Ex. 2221 at 60:12-61:13 and 65:13-
`
`23, Dr. Rotella testified that ACE and DPP-4 are mechanistically different
`
`enzymes and that it’s reasonable to expect a difference in activity between the two
`
`enzymes. In Ex. 2221 at 62:1-63:3, Dr. Rotella also testified that Hanessian
`
`reported no significant binding activity of cyclopropanated proline-containing
`
`compounds in a whole series of receptors. This testimony is relevant to conclusions
`
`in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex.
`
`1074 ¶ 47), specifically, to the correctness of his assertion that one of ordinary skill
`
`would have cyclopropanated Compound 25 with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success and to whether he did not consider if there was unpredictability.
`
`Observation #17 - In Ex. 2221 at 66:14-71:2 and 71:8-72:8, Dr. Rotella
`
`testified that Exs. 2234-2236 correctly depict the structures of and data for
`
`Compounds 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 30 of Magnin (Ex. 2002), illustrating that
`
`the orientation and location of the cyclopropyl group matters for stability and
`
`activity. See also Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 189, 227-230. This testimony is relevant to
`
`conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex.
`
`1074 ¶ 50), specifically, to whether the results obtained from the cis-4,5
`
`configuration were unpredictable, surprising, and unexpected.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #18 - In Ex. 2221 at 73:4-19, Dr. Rotella testified that Magnin
`
`(Ex. 2002), as illustrated in Ex. 2237, shows that the nature of the P2 group matters
`
`for potency—when combined with cyclopropanation at the cis-4,5 position, a 4-
`
`fold decrease in potency results for the tertiary isoleucine Compound 21 but no
`
`decrease is observed for the quaternary tert-butyl Compound 29. See also Ex. 2056
`
`¶¶ 189, 227-230. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 50), specifically, to whether
`
`the results obtained from a quaternary β-carbon in P2 in combination with a cis-4,5
`
`cyclopropyl at P1 were unpredictable, surprising, and unexpected.
`
`Observation #19 - In Ex. 2221 at 74:22-75:15 and 78:12-79:3, Dr. Rotella
`
`testified that Magnin (Ex. 2002) shows that it is possible to increase stability and
`
`preserve potency by the combination of an appropriately placed and oriented
`
`cyclopropyl and an appropriately selected P2 group. See Ex. 2238; see also Ex.
`
`2056 ¶¶ 227-230. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 50), specifically, to whether
`
`the effects of a quaternary carbon in the β-position and cis-4,5 cyclopropanation
`
`were unpredictable, surprising, and unexpected.
`
`Observation #20 - In Ex. 2221 at 77:2-9 and 77:18-23, Dr. Rotella testified
`
`that Ex. 2239 correctly depicts the structure of Compound 29 of Magnin (Ex.
`
`2002) and saxagliptin, both of which contain a quaternary carbon in the β-position
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`and a cis-4,5 cyclopropyl pyrrolidine at P1. This testimony is relevant to
`
`conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex.
`
`1074 ¶ 50), specifically, to whether saxagliptin’s potency and stability were
`
`unpredictable, surprising, and unexpected.
`
`Observation #21 - In Ex. 2221 at 81:6-83:7, Dr. Rotella testified that he was
`
`unwilling to opine, as outside his expertise, on whether a hydroxyadamantyl group
`
`of an N-linked DPP-4 inhibitor will occupy a different position in space or bind
`
`differently than a hydroxyadamantyl group of a C-linked DPP-4 inhibitor, as
`
`depicted in Ex. 2259A. In Ex. 2221 at 83:19-84:18, Dr. Rotella also testified that,
`
`in the DPP-4 field at the time, “there were no crystal structures and so one has no
`
`way of knowing how these various groups fit into and interact with the enzyme.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration and the Reply brief regarding modifications of Compound 25 (Ex.
`
`1074 ¶¶ 17-24; Reply at 13-15), specifically, to whether his opinions did not
`
`address whether a hydroxyadamantyl group of an N-linked DPP-4 inhibitor will
`
`occupy a different position in space or bind differently than a hydroxyadamantyl
`
`group of a C-linked DPP-4 inhibitor and to whether the effect of moving the N-
`
`linked P2 group to the C-linked position would have been unpredictable.
`
`Observation #22 - In Ex. 2221 at 85:12-86:21, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2241 correctly depicts that the hydroxyadamantyl group of saxagliptin binds
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`differently than the hydroxyadamantyl group of vildagliptin. This testimony is
`
`relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected
`
`results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 53), specifically, to whether there is unexpectedly favorable
`
`binding interactions between saxagliptin and the DPP-4 enzyme and
`
`unpredictability of such interactions in the absence of a crystal structure.
`
`Observation #23 - In Ex. 2221 at 87:23-89:16, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2244 correctly depicts the metabolism of vildagliptin and that vildagliptin’s major
`
`metabolite does not involve hydroxylation of the adamantyl group. In Ex. 2221 at
`
`89:17-90:3, Dr. Rotella also testified that saxagliptin’s major metabolite involves a
`
`second hydroxylation of the adamantyl group. This testimony is relevant to
`
`conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex.
`
`1074 ¶ 52), specifically, to his alleged motivation to modify Compound 25 and the
`
`unpredictability of metabolism.
`
`Observation #24 - In Ex. 2221 at 90:4-92:17, Dr. Rotella testified that he did
`
`not have an opinion on whether saxagliptin’s major metabolite is an active DPP-4
`
`inhibitor or is present in higher concentrations than saxagliptin over a longer
`
`period of time (see Ex. 2243). This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr.
`
`Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 52),
`
`specifically, to whether he considered the biological consequences of saxagliptin’s
`
`active metabolite and the unpredictable and unexpected pharmacodynamic
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`properties of saxagliptin.
`
`Observation #25 - In Ex. 2221 at 92:18-93:23, Dr. Rotella testified that
`
`saxagliptin is approximately 10x more potent than vildagliptin and that
`
`saxagliptin’s major metabolite is approximately 5x more potent than vildagliptin.
`
`In Ex. 2221 at 93:24-94:24, Dr. Rotella also testified that the half-life of the
`
`binding interaction between saxagliptin and DPP-4 is approximately 14x longer
`
`than that of vildagliptin and that the half-life of the binding interaction between
`
`saxagliptin’s major metabolite and DPP-4 is approximately 7x longer than that of
`
`vildagliptin. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd
`
`declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 52), specifically, to whether
`
`there was unpredictable and unexpected slow, tight binding kinetics observed for
`
`saxagliptin and its active metabolite and to whether the structure-function
`
`correlation for DPP-4 in humans was unpredictable.
`
`Observation #26 - In Ex. 2221 at 94:23-96:1, Dr. Rotella testified that he did
`
`not have an opinion on whether saxagliptin and its binding interactions provide a
`
`longer pharmacodynamic half-life than pharmacokinetic half-life. This testimony is
`
`relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected
`
`results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 52), specifically, to whether he considered the unpredictable
`
`and unexpected, extended pharmacodynamic profile observed for saxagliptin in
`
`vivo.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #27 - In Ex. 2221 at 99:24-101:4, Dr. Rotella testified that he
`
`did not have an opinion as to whether once daily dosing is a benefit particularly in
`
`treating patients with type 2 diabetes. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in
`
`Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding unexpected results (Ex. 1074 ¶ 53),
`
`specifically, to the unpredictability of saxagliptin’s clinical properties and to
`
`whether it met a long felt need.
`
`Observation #28 - In Ex. 2221 at 102:14-104:1, Dr. Rotella testified that, as
`
`illustrated in Ex. 2246, there was a great deal of activity in the field of DPP-4
`
`inhibitors prior to the invention of saxagliptin that did not yield an FDA-approved
`
`inhibitor. In Ex. 2221 at 104:12-14, Dr. Rotella also testified that he was not asked
`
`to consider the question of FDA approval as a part of his opinion. This testimony is
`
`relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration regarding failures of others
`
`(Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 54-55), specifically, to whether failure of others prior to the invention
`
`of saxagliptin to yield an FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitor supports non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`Observation #29 - In Ex. 2221 at 104:2-23, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2245 depicts the four FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitors, including saxagliptin, and
`
`that the structures of these DPP-4 inhibitors are unrelated. See also Ex. 2056 ¶¶
`
`133-136. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration
`
`regarding failures of others (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 54-55), specifically, it demonstrates that
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`there is no common structural motif for the four FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitors
`
`and is relevant to the unpredictability of structure-function relationships in this
`
`field.
`
`Observation #30 - In Ex. 2221 at 106:3-108:4, Dr. Rotella testified that Ex.
`
`2247 accurately depicts the information in ¶ 253 of Dr. Weber’s declaration (Ex.
`
`2056) which reports a number of compounds that came into the literature after the
`
`invention of saxagliptin, which also failed to obtain FDA approval as a DPP-4
`
`inhibitor. This testimony is relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration
`
`regarding failures of others (Ex. 1074 ¶¶ 54-55), specifically, to whether failure of
`
`others to develop an FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitor supports non-obviousness.
`
`Observation #31 - In Ex. 2221 at 109:2-13, Dr. Rotella testified that he first
`
`worked on DPP-4 inhibitors while at BMS subsequent to the discovery of
`
`saxagliptin. In Ex. 2221 at 113:7-116:21, Dr. Rotella also testified that during this
`
`time he worked with the co-inventors of the RE’186 patent—Drs. Hamann,
`
`Magnin, Augeri, and indirectly Dr. Robl (Dr. Hamann’s supervisor)—on the
`
`saxagliptin backup program. In Ex. 2221 at 109:14-113:6, Dr. Rotella also testified
`
`that he was given Ashworth I (Ex. 1007), Hanessian (Ex. 1010), and Villhauer-
`
`1998 (Ex. 1008) by BMS when he began work on this program. This testimony is
`
`relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration (Ex. 1074), specifically, to
`
`whether his analysis constitutes hindsight.
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Observation #32 - In Ex. 2221 at 117:19-23, Dr. Rotella testified that he was
`
`involuntarily separated from BMS as part of a reduction in force. This testimony is
`
`relevant to conclusions in Dr. Rotella’s 2nd declaration (Ex. 1074), specifically, to
`
`his bias.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that copies of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF DAVID P. ROTELLA was served electronically via e-
`
`mail on December 12, 2016, in its entirety to the following:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Wockhardt BIO AG.:
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc..:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Jad A. Mills
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`Douglas H. Carsten
`dcarsten@wsgr.com
`
`Patrick Gallagher
`PCGallagher@duanemorris.com
`
`Gary Speier
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Iain McIntyre
`imcintyre@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc..:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Sun/Amneal:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 12, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`