`
`
`By: Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
` MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4300
` Atlanta, GA 30303
`
`jblake@merchantgould.com
` Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
` Main Facsimile: (404) 954-509
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01776 (Patent 7,582,621 B2)
`____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`Patent 7,582,621 B2
`
`The parties met and conferred on October 31, 2016 regarding each party’s
`
`
`
`objections. Both parties agreed to remove and edit slides as a result of the meet and
`
`confer. Below are Petitioner’s remaining objections based on the Board’s decisions
`
`in St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of
`
`Mich., IPR2013-00041, at 2-3 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2014) (Paper 65) and CBS
`
`Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033, at 3 (PTAB
`
`Oct. 23, 2013) (Paper 118).
`
`I.
`
`Petitioner’s Objections To PO’s Demonstratives
`
`Slide 13: New data regarding in vivo efficacy, MIC and MW of KP-103 and
`
`new argument regarding insufficiency of MIC and MW to provide reasonable
`
`expectation in vivo efficacy (KP-103). Slide 14: New compilation of data
`
`regarding MICY and EY and new argument regarding insufficiency of MICY and
`
`MW to provide reasonable expectation of efficacy (EY). Slide 15: New data
`
`regarding the MW of terbinafine (no citation) and new argument regarding
`
`insufficiency of MIC and MW to provide reasonable expectation in vivo efficacy
`
`(terbinafine). Slides 19-21: New arguments refuting Petitioner’s argument that
`
`yeast activity is predictive of dermatophyte activity. Slides 24-25: New
`
`compilation of data supporting PO’s argument that yeast activity is not predictive
`
`of dermatophyte activity.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`Patents 7,582,621
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD, P.C.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: October 31, 2016
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq. Reg. No. 58,884
`Kathleen E. Ott, Esq. Reg. No. 64,038
`Peter A. Gergely, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Ryan J. Fletcher, Esq., Ph.D. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Brent E. Routman, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
`Merchant & Gould P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 4300
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01776
`Patents 7,582,621
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on October 31,
`
`2016, a complete and entire copy of PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS was served by email, by agreement
`
`of the parties to:
`
`areister@cov.com; and
`elongton@cov.com.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`
`
`By:
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`3