`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE
`DRUGS VII, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
`PENNSYLVANIA,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01836
`Patent 7,832,268
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Zusman’s Reply Deposition Transcript (Ex. 2306)
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2306, on page 44, lines 9-15, in response to the question “And
`
`it was generally known that for lomitapide, side effects increase with dose,
`
`correct?,” Dr. Zusman testified that “That dose was one of the factors that was
`
`associated with side effects in the previously conducted trials.” This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)
`
`would have been motivated to dose lomitapide according to the increasing dose
`
`titration regimen in Pink Sheet, purportedly with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success. See, e.g., Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 30) at pages 12-15. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a POSA
`
`would not have been motivated to use lomitapide—which was known to have
`
`dose-dependent side effects—in an increasing dose titration regimen.
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2306, on page 50, line 22 – page 51, line 14, Dr. Zusman
`
`agreed that Exhibit 1015 (Chang) states that “similar AST and ALT elevations of a
`
`magnitude sufficient to halt the development of BMS-20138 [lomitapide] were
`
`also reported.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s contention that a POSA
`
`purportedly would have understood that “BMS abandoned lomitapide for business
`
`reasons.” See, e.g., Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 30) at pages 11 and 21. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that a POSA would have understood
`
`that BMS discontinued lomitapide due to liver toxicity, undercutting any purported
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`motivation to restart development of lomitapide.
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2306, on page 51, line 15 – page 54, line 14, Dr. Zusman
`
`admits that Exhibit 2001, which includes the Technology Donation Agreement, is
`
`dated “May 19, 2006” (see Ex. 2306, page 52, lines 3-6) and “is not prior art.”
`
`(See Ex. 2306, page 53, line 6.) This testimony is relevant to Petitioner’s
`
`contention that based on the Technology Donation Agreement, a POSA would
`
`have known that “BMS abandoned lomitapide for business reasons,” and to Dr.
`
`Zusman’s contention that BMS discontinued the development of lomitapide “based
`
`on existing market conditions.” See, e.g., Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 30) at pages
`
`11, 21. This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that a POSA would not
`
`have had access to the Technology Donation Agreement as of the claimed priority
`
`date, and thus this document could not have influenced a POSA’s decision on
`
`whether to restart lomitapide development following BMS’s discontinuation of the
`
`drug.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2016
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`
`/William G. James/
`(Reg. No. 55,931)
`GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
`901 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-346-4046
`Fax: 202-346-4444
`wjames@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`
`
`OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY WITNESS was served electronically via e-mail on
`
`October 28, 2016 on the following:
`
`
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`2216 Beacon Lane
`Falls Church, Virginia 22043
`(571) 419-7252
`gonsalves@gonsalveslawfirm.com
`
`Christopher Casieri
`McNeely, Hare & War LLP
`12 Roszel Road, Suite C104
`Princeton, NJ 08540
`(609) 731-3668
`chris@miplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Coalition
`for Affordable Drugs VIII, LLC
`
`Dated: October 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Russell W. Warnick/
`Russell W. Warnick