`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ROBERT J. TANENBERG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observations Regarding Cross-Examination of Petitioners’ Reply Witness, Robert
`
`J. Tanenberg, pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Paper No. 17) and the Joint Notice
`
`of Stipulation (Paper No. 57).
`
`Observation #1 - In Ex. 2222 at 22:13-23:16, Dr. Tanenberg testified that he
`
`did not focus on claims 25 and 26 of the RE’186 patent for the purpose of his
`
`analysis of secondary considerations, despite also testifying that he understood
`
`claims 25 and 26 to saxagliptin include the chemical and biological properties that
`
`are associated with the compound saxagliptin. This testimony is relevant to
`
`statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and Petitioner’s Reply
`
`brief regarding failure of others, long-felt need, and unexpected results (Ex. 1041
`
`at ¶34, 43, 51-53; Reply at 18-24), specifically, to whether Dr. Tanenberg failed to
`
`consider the full scope of properties associated with the chemical compound
`
`saxagliptin for the purpose of his analysis of secondary considerations, and raises
`
`concerns that his opinions are non-responsive to Dr. Lenhard. Ex. 2057 at ¶16 (Dr.
`
`Lenhard stating that: “[m]y consideration of the objective evidence of non-
`
`obviousness is in connection with the chemical compound saxagliptin.”).
`
`Observation #2 - In Ex. 2222 at 25:1-16, Dr. Tanenberg testified that he did
`
`not dispute that a nexus exists between the evidence of secondary considerations
`
`and claims 25 and 26 of the RE’186 patent. This testimony is relevant to
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and Petitioner’s Reply
`
`brief regarding failure of others, long-felt need, and unexpected results (Ex. 1041
`
`at ¶¶30, 43, 53; Reply at 18-24), specifically, to whether Dr. Lenhard’s opinion
`
`that the properties and advantages of saxagliptin are directly tied to the active
`
`pharmaceutical ingredient saxagliptin is undisputed. Ex. 2057 at ¶ 54.
`
`Observation #3 - In Ex. 2222 at 27:22-28:6, Dr. Tanenberg testified that the
`
`majority of drugs that go into clinical testing will not succeed in becoming an
`
`FDA-approved drug, and that many fail for safety or efficacy reasons. This
`
`testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration
`
`and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding unpredictability, failure of others, long-felt
`
`need, and unexpected results (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶31-33, 36-41, 52, 55; Reply at 18-24),
`
`specifically, to the weight given to Petitioner’s argument that a gliptin investigator
`
`may forgo FDA approval for non-clinical reasons and to Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that achieving a DPP-4 inhibitor compound with the necessary drug-like properties
`
`for FDA-approval was unpredictable.
`
`Observation #4 - In Ex. 2222 at 35:16-21, Dr. Tanenberg testified that he did
`
`not look at the invention dates of any of the class of FDA-approved DPP-4
`
`inhibitors, rather he only looked at the dates those drugs were approved by the
`
`FDA. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s
`
`declaration and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding long-felt need (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶32-
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`37; Reply at 22-24), specifically, to whether Dr. Tanenberg failed to apply the
`
`legal standard of evaluating long-felt need as of the patent’s filing date and not
`
`when the patented product first entered the market.
`
`Observation #5 - In Ex. 2222 at 35:22-24, Dr. Tanenberg testified that he did
`
`not consider evidence of failure of others after the 2001 timeframe. This testimony
`
`is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding failure of others (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶38-50; Reply at
`
`18-20), specifically, to whether Dr. Tanenberg failed to consider Dr. Lenhard’s
`
`evidence that many other companies attempted to develop a safe and effective
`
`DPP-4 inhibitor and failed to do so even after the invention of saxagliptin. Ex.
`
`2057 at ¶66 and Table 4.
`
`Observation #6 - In Ex. 2222 at 37:2-5, Dr. Tanenberg testified that
`
`vildagliptin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This
`
`testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration
`
`and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding failure of others (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶39-41; Reply
`
`at 18-20), specifically, to whether vildagliptin is a failure.
`
`Observation #7 - In Ex. 2222 at 38:16-39:20, Dr. Tanenberg testified that the
`
`approved dosing for vildagliptin in Europe is twice daily when used as a
`
`monotherapy or with metformin and is administered once daily only when used in
`
`combination with a sulfonylurea. This testimony is relevant to statements and
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding
`
`unexpected results (Ex. 1041 at ¶53; Reply at 22), specifically, to whether
`
`saxagliptin’s property of once-daily dosing is unexpected as compared to
`
`vildagliptin.
`
`Observation #8 - In Ex. 2222 at 40:22-41:12, Dr. Tanenberg testified that
`
`each of the available oral treatments for type 2 diabetes in the prior art had
`
`“shortcomings” and that each patient with type 2 diabetes will eventually need two
`
`or more oral agents and/or insulin to maintain good control. This testimony is
`
`relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and
`
`Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding long-felt need (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶18-21, 31-37;
`
`Reply at 22-24), specifically, to whether there was a long-felt need in the prior art
`
`for a new alternative treatment option for treating type 2 diabetes.
`
`Observation #9 - In Ex. 2222 at 44:1-5, Dr. Tanenberg testified that for the
`
`purpose of his analysis of unexpected results, he only compared the properties of
`
`saxagliptin to the later-invented FDA-approved DPP-4 inhibitors: sitagliptin,
`
`linagliptin, and alogliptin. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions
`
`in Dr. Tanenberg’s declaration and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding unexpected
`
`results (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶28-30, 51-55; Reply at 20-22), specifically, to whether Dr.
`
`Tanenberg failed to apply the legal standard of comparing the unexpected
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`properties of the claimed invention to the closest prior art in reaching his opinions
`
`regarding unexpected results.
`
`Observation #10 - In Ex. 2222 at 44:21-45:6 and 46:23-47:4, Dr. Tanenberg
`
`testified that the cardiac hospitalization warning on saxagliptin’s label does not
`
`match and is different from the warning on vildagliptin’s label concerning liver
`
`toxicity. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Petitioner’s
`
`Reply brief regarding unexpected results (Reply at 22), specifically, to Petitioner’s
`
`contrary assertion in its Reply brief that “[s]axagliptin’s cardiac hospitalization
`
`warning matches vildagliptin’s toxicity warning.” Reply at 22.
`
`Observation #11 - In Ex. 2222 at 11:1-12:14, Dr. Tanenberg testified that he
`
`was not sure he knew there was a parallel district court litigation involving the
`
`RE’186 patent, and that he did not review materials generated in that litigation,
`
`including the testimony of Dr. James Lenhard and Mylan’s clinical expert, Dr.
`
`Garry Tobin. This testimony is relevant to statements and conclusions in Dr.
`
`Tanenberg’s declaration and Petitioner’s Reply brief regarding failure of others,
`
`long-felt need, and unexpected results (Ex. 1041 at ¶¶31-55; Reply at 4, 8-9, 18-
`
`24), specifically, to the weight given to Dr. Tanenberg’s statements and
`
`conclusions because it raises concerns that he has not considered all relevant
`
`information on these issues.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that copies of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF ROBERT J. TANENBERG 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
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`