`
`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
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
