throbber
Served on behalf of Petitioner COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS X LLC
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket