`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01776
`Patent No. 7,582,621
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`REGARDING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
`TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN B. KAHL, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`In accordance with: (i) The Trial Practice Guide, Federal Register Vol. 77,
`
`No. 157, 48756 at 48767–68 and (ii) the Scheduling Order (Paper No. 25) as
`
`modified by the Joint Notice of Stipulation to Adjust Schedule (Paper No. 28) and
`
`the Second Joint Notice of Stipulation to Adjust Schedule (Paper No. 31), Patent
`
`Owner hereby submits the instant Motion for Observations Regarding the Cross-
`
`Examination Testimony of Stephen B. Kahl, Ph.D., taken on September 14, 2016.
`
`The transcript of this testimony has been filed as Exhibit 2206.
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board enter the instant Motion and consider
`
`the observations. Observations 1–2 below pertain to the deposition testimony of
`
`Stephen B. Kahl, Ph.D., obtained on September 14, 2016, after Patent Owner filed
`
`its last substantive paper. In addition, and in accordance with the Trial Guide, each
`
`of observations 1–2 below provides in a single paragraph a concise statement of
`
`the relevance of the precisely identified testimony to a precisely identified
`
`argument.
`
`II. Observations
`In Ex. 2206 at 66:1-6, Dr. Kahl testified that a POSA would have had
`1.
`
`a reasonable expectation of successfully treating onychomycosis based on the
`
`disclosure of Austin alone. This testimony is relevant because this argument was
`
`not in the Petition and was presented for the first time with Petitioner’s Reply. See
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`Petition p. iii (asserting the following three grounds for invalidity: (1) obviousness
`
`over Austin in view of Brehove, (2) obviousness over Austin in view of Freeman,
`
`and (3) obviousness over Austin in view of Freeman and Sun).
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2206 at 61:14-17, Dr. Kahl testified that Petitioner’s Exhibit
`
`1028 (titled “Drug delivery to the nail following topical application”) “is rather
`
`outside my area of expertise.” At 62:14-17, Dr. Kahl testified that Exhibit 1028
`
`was “sufficiently outside my area of expertise as to be not worth reading” beyond
`
`the abstract. At 67:21-22, during his redirect examination, Dr. Kahl testified that
`
`“the subject matter of [Exhibit] 1028 is not directly related to my expertise in
`
`boron.” At 62:18-63:1, Dr. Kahl testified that in order “to review or understand”
`
`Exhibit 1028 “presumably one would need expertise in -- in drug delivery.” This
`
`is relevant because Dr. Kahl provided testimony and opinions in the field of drug
`
`delivery. For example, in his Reply Declaration, Dr. Kahl opined on toxicity
`
`concerns as related to “method of administration.” Ex. 1043 ¶ 23. This is also
`
`relevant because Petitioner’s Reply Brief cites Dr. Kahl’s Reply Declaration to
`
`support arguments related to method of administration. See Reply pp. 4 & 9-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Date: September 27, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2015-01776
`
`wyLyrile,_
`
`4|:
`LYos
`
`7
`
`Andrea G. Reist
`Registration No. 36,253
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 662-6000
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, I hereby certify that on this 27th day of
`
`September 2016, the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations Regarding
`
`the Cross-Examination Testimony of Stephen B. Kahl, Ph.D. was served. by
`
`electronic mail, by agreement of the parties, on the following counsel of record for
`
`petitioner.
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake
`Kathleen E. Ott
`Peter A. Gergely
`Ryan James Fletcher
`Brent E. Routman
`Merchant & Gould PC
`KerydinIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`Date: September 27, 2016
`
`/
`-
`/,7
`A /
`(A
`A
`“SL (Zee
`
`
`Andrea G.Reister, sq.
`Reg. No.: 36,253
`
`
`
`