`
`
`
`
`For the Petitioner
`Lead counsel: James T. Carmichael, Reg. No. 45,306
`Backup counsel: Carol A. Spiegel, Reg. No. 68,033
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. __
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS V LLC;
`HAYMAN CREDES MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN ORANGE FUND SPC – PORTFOLIO A;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MASTER FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT FUND, L.P.;
`HAYMAN OFFSHORE MANAGEMENT, INC.;
`HAYMAN INVESTMENTS, LLC;
`NXN PARTNERS, LLC;
`IP NAVIGATION GROUP, LLC;
`J KYLE BASS, and ERICH SPANGENBERG,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`BIOGEN MA INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514 B2
`____________________
`
`
`
`COALITION RESPONSE TO BIOGEN’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`
`As authorized by the 22 March 2016 Scheduling Order (Paper 21), Petitioner
`
`respectfully submits the following Response to Biogen’s Motion for Observations
`
`on Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s reply expert, Dr. Samuel J. Pleasure filed 2
`
`November 2016 (Paper 59).
`
`Biogen’s Motion should be disregarded in its entirety. A motion for
`
`observations “is not an opportunity to raise new issues, reargue issues, or pursue
`
`objections.” PTAB Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48768. However,
`
`that is exactly what Biogen’s Motion does.
`
`For example, at least Observations 1 through 6 in Biogen’s Motion
`
`improperly argue the procedural issue of whether Petitioner’s Reply had a proper
`
`scope under 37 C.F.R. §42.23(b). But the Board already explicitly ordered Biogen
`
`not to file a motion addressing that issue:
`
`There is no apparent reason why the matter cannot be
`adequately addressed as part of the oral argument. The
`Board can also determine sua sponte whether an
`inappropriate new issue has been raised. A motion and
`conference call are therefore unnecessary.
`
`
`Paper No. 52 at 2. Biogen’s defiance of that Order justifies disregarding the
`
`Motion for Observations in its entirety.
`
`
`
`Likewise, at least Observations 14-15 and 18 misuse the Motion as a sur-
`
`reply to reargue obviousness. Observation 19 improperly raises a new issue about
`
`what scientists have not determined as of today.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`If even a single observation is improper, the entire Motion for Observations
`
`may be disregarded. See Medtronic v. Nuvasive, IPR2013-00506, Paper 37 at 2-4
`
`(entire Motion for Observations dismissed due to a single improper observation).
`
`In the present case, as discussed above, there are at least ten improper
`
`Observations: Observations 1-6, 14-15, and 18-19. This more than justifies
`
`disregarding the entire Motion for Observations under Medtronic.
`
`
`
`For the sake of completeness, if the Board were not to disregard Biogen’s
`
`Motion for Observations, Petitioner provides the following responses to individual
`
`Observations.
`
`Response to Observation # 1. In Observation 1, Patent Owner argues that
`
`Dr. Pleasure’s inability at his deposition to recall specific arguments from Biogen’s
`
`“Patent Owner Response” was somehow relevant to whether Dr. Pleasure’s
`
`declaration was outside the scope of a proper reply. Petitioner Responds that the
`
`deposition questions about a “Patent Owner Response” were misleading and
`
`confusing; there was no paper filed in this IPR titled “Patent Owner Response.”
`
`Biogen did not even favor Dr. Pleasure with a copy of its Opposition after Dr.
`
`Pleasure said he did not know what document he was being asked about. Exhibit
`
`2384, page 27, lines 16-22. Dr. Pleasure said he did consider the issues discussed
`
`in such papers generally. Exhibit 2384, page 27, line 25, through page 28, line 10.
`
`As demonstrated in Petitioner’s Reply, Dr. Pleasure’s testimony is evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`responsive to the Opposition. This is true regardless of whether Dr. Pleasure
`
`identified particular statements in the Opposition.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 2. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`of the cited testimony is misleading and inaccurate. Dr. Pleasure testified that he
`
`“was provided with a couple of those [Patent Owner’s expert] declarations, that I
`
`did read at some point” (Exhibit 2384, page 17, lines 20-24) and that he “read
`
`Daniel Wynn’s expert declaration” but did not “recall whether – the names of any
`
`other ones of any people that I’ve read” (Exhibit 2384, page 18, lines 11-14). Dr.
`
`Pleasure was not favored with a copy of any of these declarations or depositions at
`
`his deposition. As demonstrated in Petitioner’s Reply, Dr. Pleasure’s testimony
`
`rebuts the Opposition evidence. This is true regardless of whether Dr. Pleasure
`
`could remember off the top of his head all of Biogen’s numerous declarations.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 3. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`of the cited testimony is misleading and inaccurate. When asked about a petition,
`
`Dr. Pleasure testified he was unsure what document he was being asked about, and
`
`Biogen did not provide a copy. Exhibit 2384, page 26, lines 7-19. Dr. Pleasure
`
`further testified he viewed such pleadings as legalese, and that he applied his
`
`education, training, and experience to come up with his own thinking about the
`
`underlying evidence he reviewed, rather than relying on the pleadings. (Id. Page
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`26, line 7, through page 27, line 24, and page 23, line 18 through page 24, line 15.).
`
`This does not detract from the Reply’s use of his testimony to rebut the Opposition.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 4. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`of the cited testimony is misleading and inaccurate. First, the testimony in Ex.
`
`2384, at page 23, line 14 through page 24, line 15 relates to Dr. Pleasure’s
`
`testimony concerning the declaration of Dr. Wynn, not Dr. Linberg. Second, Dr.
`
`Pleasure testified he agreed with Dr. Linberg “in some substance, in most
`
`substance I do, I believe, but I’m not a hundred percent sure because I didn’t
`
`review his opinions in great detail” (Ex. 2384, p. 24, ll. 16-22). In any event, if
`
`Biogen is correct that Dr. Pleasure did not rely on Dr. Linberg’s opinions, that does
`
`not make his testimony improper.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 5. Petitioner responds that the cited testimony
`
`does not detract from Dr. Pleasure’s reasoned testimony on the issues of
`
`unexpected results and long-felt need. (Ex. 1045, ¶¶69-72 and 74-76). Observation
`
`# 5 is another improper attempt to pursue the procedural issue of proper scope of
`
`reply under §42.23(b).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 6. Petitioner responds that the cited testimony
`
`does not detract from Dr. Pleasure’s reasoned testimony on unexpected results.
`
`(Ex. 1045, ¶¶69-72 and 75). Observation # 6 is another improper attempt to pursue
`
`the procedural issue of proper scope of reply under §42.23(b).
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 7. Petitioner responds that Dr. Pleasure’s cited
`
`testimony does not detract from Dr. Pleasure’s credentials as a person of ordinary
`
`skill or an expert qualified to testify as to the conclusions of one of ordinary skill
`
`(see Dr. Pleasure’s CV Ex. 1046, e.g., p. 1 (post-graduate education in Neurology;
`
`Board Certification in Neurology), 3 (clinical activities), and 7 (Member of
`
`National MS Society Scientific Review Panel A)). Dr. Pleasure testified that he
`
`provided his opinions from two different viewpoints, using two possible definitions
`
`of POSA (Ex. 2384, p. 67, l. 15 – p. 68, l. 7). He further testified that at least three
`
`years of clinical experience treating MS, under one definition, could be met by
`
`treating MS patients part-time (id. p. 75, l. 12 – p. 76, l. 2).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 8. Petitioner responds that Dr. Pleasure’s cited
`
`testimony does not detract from Dr. Pleasure’s credentials as a person of ordinary
`
`skill or an expert qualified to testify as to the conclusions of one of ordinary skill in
`
`2007 (see Dr. Pleasure’s CV, Ex. 1046, e.g., p. 1 (post-graduate education in
`
`Neurology; Board Certification in Neurology), 3 (clinical activities), and 7
`
`(Member of National MS Society Scientific Review Panel A)).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 9. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`of the cited testimony is inaccurate and misleading, omitting important credentials
`
`and experience of Dr. Pleasure. For example, Dr. Pleasure testified he had
`
`“reviewed clinical trials as research programs” and decided “whether they should
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`be funded or not, both within the University of California, San Francisco, as well
`
`as for the National MS Society” (Ex. 2384. p. 38, ll. 20-25), “wanted to make clear
`
`that I am not unfamiliar with clinical trials” (id. p. 39, ll. 12-20), and was “an
`
`expert witness having to do with whether a clinical trial might have some flaws or
`
`other problems with it or some features of it … I do that all the time” (id. p. 52, ll.
`
`16-19). See also Dr. Pleasure’s CV, Ex. 1046.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 10. Petitioner responds that the cited testimony
`
`is mischaracterized. Dr. Pleasure also testified “I have familiarity of clinical
`
`pharmacology such that is needed to be a physician who is an academician, who is
`
`teaching young physicians and residents and fellows” (Ex. 2384 p. 45, ll. 4-7). See
`
`also Dr. Pleasure’s CV, Ex. 1046¸e.g., academic, professional, and editorial board
`
`positions, professional service activities, and mentoring (pp. 1-3 and 9-12).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 11. Petitioner responds that even if Dr.
`
`Pleasure could not recall where he first heard the term “point dose” and so on, he
`
`further testified it’s a term “useful to help to sort of keep track of what people
`
`mean in different situations” (id. p. 59, ll. 21-24). Thus, Dr. Pleasure’s use of the
`
`term helps clarify issues raised in the Opposition concerning the Petition’s
`
`argument that it would have been obvious to go from 240 mg three times a day to
`
`240 mg twice a day of DMF (Paper 1 at 27). Dr. Pleasure further explained: “I
`
`don’t care whether the patient takes `two 300 milligram capsules or one 600
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`milligram capsule. I do care that the patient is taking X dosage per administration.
`
`That’s what the point dose is, is my understanding” (id., p. 131, ll. 10-15). Further,
`
`Biogen’s own expert Dr. Rudick used the same terminology when discussing the
`
`DEFINE clinical study in his deposition (Ex. 1053, p. 71, ll. 12-19). Even if “point
`
`dose” was not a well known term, that would not show unobviousness in lowering
`
`the number of times 240mg DMF was administered to MS patients, from three
`
`times a day in Kappos 2006 to two times a day as claimed. Dr. Pleasure explained
`
`his opinion that such lowering was still obvious no matter whether you call it a
`
`“point dose” or something else. Ex. 2384 at page 153, lines 13-24.
`
`
`
` Response to Observation # 12. This Observation mischaracterizes the
`
`cited testimony. In the cited testimony, when asked whether the efficacy of DMF
`
`in treating MS is driven by its Cmax, Dr. Pleasure testified that DMF’s efficacy in
`
`treating MS is due to its immunomodulatory effects that change the responsiveness
`
`of the immune system to the nervous system. Ex. 2384, on p. 45, l. 25 – p. 46, l.
`
`14. The cited testimony is consistent with Dr. Pleasure’s opinion that “a drug’s in
`
`vivo effect links point dose concentration to the effect site (here, the immune
`
`system) concentration” (Paper 46 at 22-23; Ex. 1045 ¶ 70) because the time course
`
`of drug concentration cannot in itself predict the time course or magnitude of the
`
`drug’s pharmacodynamics effect (id.).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 13. First, Observation #13 argues Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s testimony, that Kappos 2006 was not designed to determine whether
`
`efficacy resulted from the point dose or the daily dosage, somehow contradicts Dr.
`
`Pleasure’s declaration. However, Dr. Pleasure’s declaration did not say Kappos
`
`2006 was designed to determine whether efficacy resulted from the point dose or
`
`the daily dosage. (Ex. 1045 at ¶¶ 69.). Second, Observation #13 asserts Dr.
`
`Pleasure testified “that the only conclusion one could draw from Kappos 2006 is
`
`that 720 mg/day is effective.” To the contrary, Dr. Pleasure testified Kappos 2006
`
`supported additional conclusions about what persons of skill in the art were
`
`motivated to do, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Ex. 2384, page 140, line
`
`21, through 141, line 9. These additional conclusions included POSA focusing on
`
`the fact that the patient is getting 240 milligrams as a single dose each time (Ex.
`
`2384, page 142, lines 15-21), viewing that fact as the key factor (Ex. 2384, page
`
`143, lines 15-24), recognizing that the short half-life of MMF points towards the
`
`importance of 240mg as a point dose rather than 720mg as a total daily dosage
`
`(Ex. 2384, page 148, line 20, through page 149, line 6), taking as the next step
`
`administering the same 240 mg point dose at a different frequency (Ex. 2384, page
`
`144, lines 4-9), and decreasing the frequency of taking the DMF dose to reduce
`
`side effects including upset stomach (Ex. 2384, page 145, lines 16-22).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 14. This Observation takes testimony out of
`
`context. The full context includes testimony by Dr. Pleasure that given what is
`
`known about the way immunomodulatory drugs work in MS, that “if given in
`
`lower intervals, intervals at which they are no longer pharmacokinetically really
`
`present in large amounts in the circulation,” it is reasonable to believe that the
`
`effectiveness of the drug is “actually not dependent on the pharmacokinetic
`
`concentration” (id. p. 156, l. 13 – p. 158, l. 8).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 15. Petitioner responds that the observation
`
`makes improper inferences and fails to cite other testimony from Dr. Pleasure. In
`
`Ex. 2384, on p. 151, l. 10 – p. 152, l. 7 (cited in the observation), Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that he was “not aware of anybody who stated it [i.e., the effect in Kappos
`
`was due to a 240 mg point dose] in the way that I’ve stated it. … [T]hey may
`
`choose to describe it in some other way.”
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 16. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`mischaracterizes the cited testimony of Dr. Pleasure. According to Biogen, in Ex.
`
`2384, p. 151, l. 10 – p. 152, l. 7 (cited in the observation), Dr. Pleasure testified he
`
`thought identifying the effective dosage in the Results section of Kappos 2006 as
`
`240 mg of DMF administered three times a day was “dispensable.” Dr. Pleasure
`
`testified that meeting abstracts have a defined word counts and since Kappos 2006
`
`had previously described 240 mg three times daily (720 mg per day), he would
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`have thought describing the results as (720 mg per day) versus 240 mg three times
`
`(720 mg per day) would save some “dispensable” words but leave their meaning
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`“incredibly clear” (id. p. 138, l. 9 – p. 139, l. 5).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 17. This Observation fails to mention that, in
`
`his declaration, Dr. Pleasure was asked specifically to respond to Patent Owner’s
`
`argument that the side-effect profile for DMF treatment groups was very similar to
`
`that of placebo based on Table 3 of the 2008 Lancet publication (Ex. 2058) (see
`
`Biogen’s Opposition to the Petition, Paper 38 at pp. 38-39). Thus, the
`
`Observation is misleading when it says Dr. Pleasure relied on Exhibit 2058 “to
`
`support his obviousness opinion.”
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 18. This Observation mischaracterizes the cited
`
`testimony and omits important context. For example, Dr. Pleasure testified “240
`
`milligrams given as a single dose achieves a peak level that has a biological effect
`
`that is not present … when 120 milligrams is given” (Ex. 2384 on p. 158, l. 9 – p.
`
`159, l. 18). While Dr. Pleasure did not form off-the-cuff opinions on various
`
`hypotheticals, Dr. Pleasure repeatedly turned to what was known, e.g., “we know
`
`what the maximum effect of 240 three times a day is” (id. p. 163, l. 4 – p. 165, l.
`
`2), and testified that administering 240 mg two times a day was an identifiable and
`
`predictable solution at the time of the invention at least because POSA would have:
`
`focused on the fact that patients in Kappos 2006 received 240 mg as a single dose
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`each time (Ex. 2384, page 142, lines 15-21); viewed that fact as the key factor (Ex.
`
`2384, page 143, lines 15-24); recognized that the short half-life of MMF points
`
`towards the importance of 240 mg as a point dose rather than 720 mg as a total
`
`daily dosage (Ex. 2384, page 148, line 20, through page 149, line 6); taken as the
`
`next step administering the same 240 mg point dose at a different frequency (Ex.
`
`2384, page 144, lines 4-9); and decreased the frequency of taking the DMF dose to
`
`reduce side effects including upset stomach (Ex. 2384, page 145, lines 16-22).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 19. Petitioner responds that Biogen’s summary
`
`of the cited testimony is inaccurate and misleading. Dr. Pleasure testified in Ex.
`
`2384, on p. 167, l. 21 – p. 168, l. 4 (cited in the observation) that he could not give
`
`an informed opinion on an article without adequate time to read it and further
`
`testified “Another – another just a thing to point out for the record is I could not
`
`actually read this paper even if I wanted to right now because the figures are
`
`reproduced in a manner that I can’t even see them” (id. p. 169, ll. 6-10) (not cited
`
`in the observation). The cited testimony is consistent with his earlier testimony
`
`that DMF is efficacious in treating MS because of its immunomodulatory effects
`
`(id. p. 46, ll. 4-9).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 20. The cited testimony concerning Avonex®,
`
`Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri® is consistent with Dr. Pleasure’s
`
`testimony that those drugs would inform POSA’s views on Kappos 2006 at least
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because they are thought to act by modifying immune processes that are believed
`
`to be responsible for the pathogenesis of MS (see e.g., Ex. 2384,. p. 87, l. 15 – p.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`89, l. 5).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 21. Biogen’s summary of the cited testimony
`
`mischaracterizes Dr. Pleasure’s testimony. According to Biogen, Ex. 2384, on (a)
`
`page 77, line 4 through page 91, line 2 and (b) page 67, lines 2 to 11 and page 98,
`
`line 23 through page 99, line 23 (cited in the observation), Dr. Pleasure testified
`
`that (a) Avonex®, Rebif®, Betaseron®, Copaxone®, and Tysabri® have different
`
`mechanisms of action than Tecfidera® which (b) are not fully understood. This
`
`cited testimony is not relevant because Dr. Pleasure testified that what these drugs
`
`have in common is that they are thought to act by modifying immune processes
`
`that are believed to be responsible for the pathogenesis of MS (see e.g., id. p. 87, l.
`
`15 – p. 89, l. 5).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 22. The cited testimony does not detract from
`
`Dr. Pleasure’s reasoned testimony on the issue of no long-felt need for an oral MS
`
`treatment (Ex. 1045, ¶76) or his testimony that oral disease-modifying agents for
`
`treating MS were in development in 2007 (Ex. 2384, p. 97, ll. 15-18).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 23. Petitioner responds that the cited testimony
`
`is taken out of context. Dr. Pleasure and Petitioner clearly applied the correct
`
`standard for written description. See e.g., Paper 45 at pp. 2-4 (“the ‘921
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`provisional is NOT a constructive reduction to practice of the invention claimed in
`
`the ‘514 patent.”). For inventions in unpredictable technologies more evidence is
`
`needed to show possession. The use of the word “made” can refer to a
`
`constructive reduction to practice, which Dr. Pleasure and Petitioner addressed.
`
`Compare 60 Fed. Reg. 20195, 20206, Comment 15 (a constructive reduction to
`
`practice can satisfy 35 U.S.C. 102(g) which uses the word “made”).
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 24. This Observation makes improper
`
`inferences and takes cited testimony out of context. The cited testimony is part of
`
`a much larger response to the question of what is unknown about MS in Ex. 2384,
`
`on page 62, line 17 through page 66, line 5, wherein Dr. Pleasure also testifies that
`
`for the most part, disease-modifying therapies which tend to work in relapsing
`
`forms of MS do not work in relapsing forms of MS for some unknown reason (id.
`
`p. 65, ll. 20-25). Taken in context, contrary to the Observation, the testimony
`
`supports a conclusion that the provisional application does not enable the full
`
`scope of the ‘514 claims.
`
`
`
`Response to Observation # 25. Petitioner responds that the cited testimony
`
`mischaracterizes the testimony of Dr. Pleasure. In Ex. 2384, on page 119, lines
`
`15-23 (cited in the observation), Dr. Pleasure testified paragraph 116 of the
`
`provisional “describes a range of doses, a large range of doses, 480 is in that
`
`range.” When asked in a non-leading question what he meant “by described,
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`literally or in the legal sense,” Dr. Pleasure further testified “I quite clearly meant
`
`described in the sense that it was written in English and printed in this paragraph”
`
`(Ex. 2384, p. 174, ll. 4-24). This is consistent with Dr. Pleasure’s testimony that
`
`the provisional does not disclose to POSA that Biogen was in possession of the
`
`claimed invention. [Ex. 1045, ¶¶ 49-58.]
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 09 November 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /James T. Carmichael/
`James T. Carmichael, Reg. No. 45,306
`Carol A. Spiegel, Reg. No. 68,033
`Carmichael IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Ste. 1350
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`(703) 646-9255
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`IPR2015-01993
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01993
`Patent 8,399,514
`
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(e) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing COALITION RESPONSE
`
`TO BIOGEN’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS was served on 09 November
`
`2016, via electronic mail directed to counsel of record for the Patent Owner at the
`
`following:
`
`Michael J. Flibbert
`Maureen D. Queler
`Erin M. Sommers
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`michael.flibbert@finnegan.com
`maureen.queler@finnegan.com
`erin.sommers@finnegan.com
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`
`
`Dated: 09 November 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /James T. Carmichael/
`James T. Carmichael, Reg. No. 45,306
`CARMICHAEL IP, PLLC
`8000 Towers Crescent Drive, Ste. 1350
`Tysons Corner, VA 22182
`(703) 646-9255
`
`15
`
`