throbber
Paper No. ___
`Date Filed: December 20, 2016
`
`Filed On Behalf Of: Novartis AG
`
`By: Nicholas N. Kallas
`
`NKallas@fchs.com
`
`ZortressAfinitorIPR@fchs.com
`
`(212) 218-2100
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. AND
`ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NOVARTIS AG,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-000841
`U.S. Patent 5,665,772
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF WILLIAM L. JORGENSEN, PH.D
`
`
`
`
`1 Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. was joined as a party to this proceeding via a
`Motion for Joinder in IPR2016-01023; Roxane Laboratories, Inc. was joined as a
`party via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2016-01102.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Yalkowsky Would Not Have Motivated A POSA To Modify
`Rapamycin To Arrive At Everolimus, Nor Provided A Reasonable
`Expectation That Everolimus Would Have Increased Water Solubility
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 113, line 19 to page 115, line 6, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`that that the free energy change (ΔG) for a process such as dissolution is dependent
`
`upon the change in entropy (ΔS), enthalpy (ΔH) and temperature (T) as reflected in
`
`the thermodynamic formula ΔG=ΔH-TΔS, and a chemical change that results in a
`
`more negative value for ΔG will favor dissolution. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ reliance on Yalkowsky’s entropy teachings and assertion that “flexible
`
`bonds would have been reasonably expected to increase the internal entropy of
`
`fusion as taught by Yalkowsky and favorably influence everolimus’s dissolution.
`
`([Ex. 1118] ¶¶88-90; Ex. 1007 at 108 (‘there is a regular increase in ΔSf with
`
`increasing chain length’).)” Paper 46 (“Reply”) 14. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it indicates that when considering the change in free energy of dissolution
`
`(ΔG), and whether a given chemical change will increase solubility, it is not
`
`sufficient to consider only the change in entropy (ΔS), as enthalpy (ΔH) must also
`
`be considered.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 120, line 13 to page 122, line 10, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`that chemically modifying a compound may result in an increase in entropy but a
`
`decrease in water solubility. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion
`
`that “increasing internal entropy had been shown to increase calculations of ideal
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`solubility and result in increased actual measured solubility.” Reply 16. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ suggestion that an increase
`
`in internal entropy will necessarily lead to an increase in water solubility, and
`
`instead shows that an increase in internal entropy can lead to a decrease in water
`
`solubility. See also Ex. 2091, Tr. 47:15-48:22 (discussing interplay between
`
`entropic and enthalpic effects).
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 120, lines 4 to 9 and page 116, lines 14 to 25, Dr.
`
`Jorgensen admitted that Yalkowsky does not discuss the impact of adding flexible
`
`groups on enthalpy, and agreed that in “an ideal solution, the focus would be only
`
`entropy of solution if you’re looking at the free energy change” because “the
`
`enthalpy change in mixing is zero.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’
`
`reliance on Yalkowsky, and assertion that Yalkowsky’s teachings about the effect
`
`of entropy on dissolution are not limited to ideal solutions. Reply 15-16. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that while an increase in entropy may result
`
`in an increase in ideal solubility (because the change in enthalpy, ΔH, is zero in an
`
`ideal solution), the same is not true in a non-ideal solution because enthalpy must
`
`also be considered.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 117, line 4 to page 118, line 16, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`that the process described in Yalkowsky’s Figure 2 concerns entropy, and does not
`
`concern enthalpy. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that Figure 2
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`is not limited to ideal solutions. Reply 15-16; Ex. 1118 ¶ 82. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it confirms that Yalkowsky’s Figure 2 does not account for a
`
`change in enthalpy upon dissolution, and enthalpy is a factor that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would consider when evaluating solubility in a
`
`non-ideal solution (see supra).
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 120, lines 10 to 12, Dr. Jorgensen testified that the effect
`
`of adding a flexible chain on enthalpy is not independent of the solvent (i.e., it is
`
`solvent-dependent). This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that the
`
`“favorable effect [on entropy of a flexible chain upon dissolution] is independent
`
`of the solvent.” Reply 15-16; Ex. 1118 ¶ 82. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that the impact of adding a flexible chain is solvent-dependent where the
`
`solution is non-ideal, because enthalpy must also be considered.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 115, line 7 to page 116, line 3, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`(consistent with Petitioners’ counsel’s objection), that enthalpy of solution was not
`
`an issue discussed in his supplemental declaration, and that he did not cite any
`
`references that suggest a more polar compound would have a more negative
`
`enthalpy of solution. This testimony is relevant because it goes to the weight and
`
`credibility of Dr. Jorgensen’s testimony about water solubility and his assertion
`
`that more polar compounds would have a more negative enthalpy of solution. Ex.
`
`2222, Tr. 115:7-21.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 124, line 18 to page 127, line 13, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`that that the trend discussed in paragraphs 97-99 of his supplemental declaration
`
`(Ex. 1118), that solubility of alkyl p-aminobenzoates increased with increasing
`
`chain length, was based on calculated ideal solubilities and solubility in methanol,
`
`ethanol and 1-propanol, not in water; Dr. Jorgensen further testified that the trend
`
`would be different in water. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion
`
`that “ideal solubility is premised on basic thermodynamic concepts that apply to all
`
`systems . . . and a POSA would have understood the same qualitative effects apply
`
`in real and ideal systems. ([Ex. 1118] ¶¶13, 92-99.)” Reply 16. This testimony is
`
`relevant because, as Dr. Jorgensen testified, the “qualitative effect” on solubility of
`
`increasing chain length will vary depending on the solvent.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 133, line 7 to page 134, line 11, Dr. Jorgensen agreed that
`
`Yalkowsky 1972 (Ex. 2219) examined the water solubility of alkyl p-
`
`aminobenzoates (the same compounds discussed in Yalkowsky (Ex. 1007) Table
`
`III, Schwartz (Ex. 1117), and Ex. 1118 ¶¶ 97-99 (see Ex. 2222, Tr. 130:19-
`
`131:19)), and reported in Figure 2 that as hydrocarbon chain length increased (and
`
`therefore entropy increased), water solubility decreased, which trend is the
`
`opposite of that reported in Table II of Schwartz in methanol, ethanol, or 1-
`
`propanol, or as calculated using ideal solubility calculations. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that “increasing internal entropy had been shown
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`to increase calculations of ideal solubility and result in increased actual measured
`
`solubility.” Reply 16 (citing Dr. Jorgensen’s statement (Ex. 1118 ¶ 99) that “the
`
`same trends [as reported in Schwartz (Ex. 1117) Table II] can be seen in the ideal
`
`solubilities as in the measured solubilities—as alkyl side chain length increases,
`
`solubility increases in each of the three solvents. ([Ex. 1117, Table II].) Thus, a
`
`POSA would have understood that increasing alkyl side chains positively
`
`influences solubility in real solutions and this impact is not limited to ideal
`
`solutions.”). This testimony is relevant because it confirms that a chemical change
`
`that increases entropy, and results in an increase in ideal solubility or solubility in a
`
`given organic solvent, may result in a decrease in aqueous solubility (i.e., the
`
`opposite trend), contrary to Petitioners’ suggestion that adding flexible chains
`
`would be expected to increase solubility in all solvents.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 128, line 6 to page 129, line 17, Dr. Jorgensen agreed that
`
`Schwartz (Ex. 1117) at 252 indicates that “as you increase the length of a
`
`hydrocarbon side chain, there is decreased aqueous solubility,” which is what a
`
`POSA would expect. At Ex. 2222, page 134, line 20 to page 135, line 11, Dr.
`
`Jorgensen further agreed that Yalkowsky 1972 (Ex. 2219) at 854 states that for
`
`methyl, ethyl, propyl and butyl esters, there is a 2.24 fold decrease in water
`
`solubility per methylene unit and for longer alkyl p-aminobenzoates, there is a 4.22
`
`fold decrease per methylene unit. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`assertion that “Yalkowsky taught that the entropic effect of extending the side
`
`chain with flexible derivatives would create a powerful potential benefit to
`
`solubility,” and that “ideal solubility is premised on basic thermodynamic concepts
`
`that apply to all systems . . . and a POSA would have understood the same
`
`qualitative effects apply in real and ideal systems.” Reply 10, 16. This testimony
`
`is relevant because it shows that Petitioners’ reliance on entropy and ideal
`
`solutions does not account for all relevant factors at play in non-ideal solutions;
`
`despite the addition of a flexible hydrocarbon side chain, and associated increase in
`
`entropy, increasing the length of a hydrocarbon side chain would be expected to
`
`decrease aqueous solubility.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 69, lines 16 to 24, Dr. Jorgensen testified that adding
`
`aliphatic carbons would be expected to diminish solubility. At Ex. 2222, page 127,
`
`line 14 to page 128, line 5, Dr. Jorgensen further testified that adding methylene
`
`groups (-CH2-) would be expected to increase entropy, but these groups are
`
`hydrophobic and could decrease solubility. This testimony is relevant for the same
`
`reasons as set forth in above, i.e., Petitioners’ focus on entropy alone ignores
`
`enthalpy, which is an important factor impacting solubility in non-ideal solutions.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 69, line 25 to page 71, line 17 and page 74, line 8 to page
`
`75, line 15, Dr. Jorgensen testified that Lemke’s chapter, which is specifically
`
`directed to predicting the water solubility of organic functional groups (Ex. 1008),
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`nowhere (i) teaches that adding flexible chains will increase water solubility, (ii)
`
`discusses entropy, or (iii) discusses the concepts in Yalkowsky (Ex. 1007). This
`
`testimony is relevant because it goes to the weight and credibility of Petitioners’
`
`assertions that a POSA would have applied Yalkowsky’s statements about how
`
`flexible chains affect entropy and ideal solubility, to the non-ideal solution of
`
`rapamycin in water, or that a POSA would combine Yalkowsky with Lemke to
`
`predict water solubility of organic compounds. Reply 10, 15-16.
`
`II.
`
`Petitioners Have Not Met Their Burden
`Of Establishing That A POSA Would Select
`Rapamycin As A Lead Compound Over Other Alternatives
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 5, line 14 to page 6, line 2, Dr. Jorgensen agreed that “[a]s
`
`of October 1992, [medicinal chemists were] making derivatives of
`
`immunosuppressants other than rapamycin” and testified that “if they were
`
`working with other compounds, the assumption would be that they are viewing
`
`some of these other compounds as their lead compound, and they’re making
`
`derivatives of those compounds.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’
`
`assertion that rapamycin would be a lead compound because “researchers regularly
`
`selected rapamycin for modification.” Reply 3-4. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that medicinal chemists were using immunosuppressants other
`
`than rapamycin “as their lead compound.”
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 9, line 14 to page 16, line 7, Dr. Jorgensen testified that
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`the Hughes (Ex. 1009) and Schiehser (Ex. 1011) patents were assigned to
`
`American Home Products, and that he had not considered whether any of the other
`
`medicinal chemists working on rapamycin were also affiliated with American
`
`Home Products, nor had he looked at the file history for the Stella ‘803 patent (Ex.
`
`2218 at 20-21), in which the inventors appointed an American Home Products
`
`attorney to prosecute their application. See also Ex. 2222, Tr. 104:20-105:12.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ suggestion that numerous medicinal
`
`chemists had selected rapamycin as a lead compound as of October 1992. Reply 4.
`
`This testimony is relevant because it contradicts the suggestion that there was
`
`widespread interest in making chemical derivatives of rapamycin.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 16, line 16 to page 17, line 5, Dr. Jorgensen agreed that
`
`based on the information presented in Dr. Roush’s declaration (Ex. 2093 ¶¶ 161-
`
`164) a POSA “would have thought that rapamycin was toxic in monkeys and
`
`baboons.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that rapamycin
`
`would be selected as a lead compound. Reply 4. This testimony is relevant
`
`because a proper legal analysis requires comparing all of rapamycin’s properties,
`
`not just potency, to those of the other known immunosuppressants (see Reply 3-4)
`
`prior to identifying a lead compound.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 19, line 23 to page 20, line 18, Dr. Jorgensen testified that
`
`he doubts that in October 1992 the cause of rapamycin’s toxicity was understood,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`and he had no knowledge of whether rapamycin’s toxicity was related to its
`
`mechanism for immunosuppressive activity. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertion that rapamycin would be selected as a lead compound. Reply
`
`4. This testimony is relevant because the absence of information about the cause
`
`of rapamycin’s toxicity is a factor that a POSA would have considered prior to
`
`selecting a lead compound, and one that would have dissuaded a POSA from
`
`selecting rapamycin as a lead compound.
`
`III. Petitioners Have Not Cited Any Prior Art Teaching That
`Rapamycin’s Water Solubility Led To Formulation Problems
`For Immunosuppressive Uses Such That A POSA Would
`Have Been Motivated To Chemically Modify Rapamycin
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 77, line 10 to page 81, line 18, page 90, line 5 to page 92,
`
`line 9, and page 98, lines 6 to 11, Dr. Jorgensen identified Fiebig (Ex. 1034) and
`
`Morris (Ex. 1005) as the only references that expressly discussed formulation
`
`problems with rapamycin, but agreed that Fiebig concerns only antitumor uses (not
`
`immunosuppressive uses) and formulations for injection (not oral administration),
`
`and Morris does not report any difficulty in preparing formulations of rapamycin.2
`
`
`2 Dr. Jorgensen also testified that Stella (Ex. 1010) does not expressly discuss
`
`rapamycin formulation problems (Ex. 2222, Tr. 79:2-8), and concerns antitumor
`
`uses and injectable administration, not immunosuppressive uses or oral
`
`administration (id., Tr. 112:23-113:15).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that the prior art taught that
`
`rapamycin was difficult to formulate in stable galenic compositions. Reply 5-6.
`
`This testimony is relevant because Petitioners have argued here that the POSA was
`
`seeking an immunosuppressant with a sufficient level of oral bioavailability—not
`
`an antitumor agent for injection,3 yet Petitioners have not identified any prior art
`
`that indicates that there were formulation difficulties that would have provided a
`
`motivation to improve rapamycin’s water solubility for immunosuppressant uses.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 85, line 3 to page 86, line 25, Dr. Jorgensen agreed that
`
`rapamycin was moving forward in development as an immunosuppressant prior to
`
`October 1992, as reflected by the filing of an investigational new drug application
`
`(IND), the development of a rapamycin formulation, and approval to proceed with
`
`initial human testing using that formulation. This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ assertions that “[rapamycin’s] development was hindered by poor
`
`solubility” (Ex. 1118 ¶ 111), that poor solubility may preclude preclinical testing
`
`(id. ¶ 32), and that a POSA would have been motivated to chemically modify
`
`rapamycin rather than address any water solubility concerns through formulation
`
`solutions (Reply 6). This testimony is relevant because the submission of an IND
`
`for immunosuppression demonstrates that rapamycin was moving forward in
`
`3 Dr. Ratain testified that as of October 1992, a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to pursue oral antitumor drugs (Ex. 2223, Tr. 216:6-21).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`development and its alleged water solubility issues presumably were being
`
`addressed through formulation techniques, or did not require addressing for
`
`immunosuppressive uses.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 89, line 5 to page 90, line 13, Dr. Jorgensen testified that
`
`he has not “specifically looked . . . into formulations of rapamycin” and “was not
`
`focusing on formulation issues.” At page 96, lines 13 to 16, Dr. Jorgensen further
`
`testified “formulation was not [his] assignment here.” This testimony is relevant to
`
`Petitioners’ reliance on Dr. Jorgensen to assert that a POSA would not consider
`
`formulation techniques to address rapamycin’s alleged water solubility concerns.
`
`Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1118 ¶ 32). This testimony is relevant because without
`
`considering the potential of formulation approaches to address rapamycin’s water
`
`solubility, Dr. Jorgensen’s opinion that a POSA would have chosen to address
`
`water solubility by chemical modification instead of formulations is entitled to
`
`little weight. Ex. 1118 ¶ 32.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 90, line 14 to page 92, line 9 and page 92, line 13 to page
`
`93, line 7, Dr. Jorgensen testified that Fiebig (Ex. 1034) tested various compounds
`
`for antitumor activity in human tumor xenografts using in vitro rapamycin doses of
`
`100 mg/kg/day, and does not disclose testing for transplant rejection activity. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that Fiebig suggests that development
`
`of rapamycin was stopped due to solubility problems. Reply 6. This testimony is
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`relevant because the development discussed in Fiebig relates to antitumor activity
`
`at doses of 100 mg/kg/day, whereas Dr. Jorgensen testified that here a POSA’s
`
`primary focus was on immunosuppression (Ex. 2222, Tr. 4:21-5:2), and
`
`characterized an in vitro dose for immunosuppression of 7 mg/kg/week as a “high
`
`dose” (id., Tr. 17:22-18:4, 19:16-22; Ex. 1118 ¶ 20; Ex. 1005 at 59-60).
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 93, lines 15 to 19, Dr. Jorgensen testified that Fiebig (Ex.
`
`1034) reports that rapamycin development was stopped “due to solubility problems
`
`and toxicity associated with the Cremophor used in the experimental formulation.”
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 95, line 23 to page 97, line 3, Dr. Jorgensen further testified that
`
`“[o]f course there are . . . other things that are used to solubilize hydrophobic
`
`compounds include[ing] cyclodextrins,” as well as others. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that “resorting to formulation techniques [would]
`
`be a failure.” Reply 6; Ex. 1118 ¶¶ 32-35. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`demonstrates that Petitioners’ reliance on a single instance of toxicity associated
`
`with Cremophor, where no information is provided about the formulations tested
`
`(see Ex. 2222, Tr. 97:4-98:5; Ex. 1034 at 116), including the concentrations of
`
`rapamycin or Cremophor used, does not support the conclusion that all formulation
`
`solutions would be ineffective, especially when Dr. Jorgensen admitted that he had
`
`not looked into formulation issues.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 100, line 19 to page 101, line 19, Dr. Jorgensen testified
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`that “by formulation . . . poorly water-soluble compounds have been developed to
`
`FDA-approved drugs” and formulation is one approach that can be used to
`
`improve the bioavailability of poorly water-soluble compounds. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that “relying on formulation solutions could be
`
`ineffective or introduce other problems.” Reply 6. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that others had used formulation solutions to develop poorly
`
`water-soluble compounds for therapeutic use, which is consistent with Dr.
`
`Jorgensen’s prior testimony that when he was, for example, working on water
`
`solubility problems with the drug Celebrex, “the intrinsic bioavailability was about
`
`20 percent and then through formulation they were able to get it up to 45 percent,
`
`and declared Victory.” Ex. 2019, Tr. 167:2-14; Ex. 2092 ¶ 160.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 102, lines 6 to 14, Dr. Jorgensen testified that “normally,
`
`formulation shouldn’t be changing the mechanism of action of a compound.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that a POSA would seek to address
`
`rapamycin’s allegedly poor water solubility while retaining rapamycin’s
`
`immunosuppressive activity. Reply 1, 6. This testimony is relevant to that
`
`motivation because formulation solutions could be used to increase rapamycin’s
`
`rate of dissolution without altering its mechanism of action.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 105, line 13 to page 106, line 18, Dr. Jorgensen identified
`
`Stella as the only reference “that sticks out in [his] mind that” discloses rapamycin
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`derivatives with better water solubility than rapamycin and further testified that
`
`Stella’s rapamycin derivatives are prodrugs, including prodrugs with water
`
`soluble-salts. This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion that a POSA
`
`would not have preferred to prepare prodrugs or salts over the other derivatives
`
`identified by Dr. Jorgensen. Reply 6-8; Ex. 1118 ¶¶ 39, 45. This testimony is
`
`relevant because the only prior art rapamycin derivatives Petitioners identified with
`
`improved water solubility were prodrugs and/or water-soluble salts.
`
`IV. Petitioners Have Not Identified Any Prior Art Disclosing
`Alkylation Reactions At Rapamycin’s C40 Position
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 33, lines 2 to 25, Dr. Jorgensen testified that he could not
`
`identify any references that disclose alkylation reactions to rapamycin’s hydroxyl
`
`groups. This testimony is relevant to the weight and credibility of Dr. Jorgensen’s
`
`suggestion that alkylation reactions of rapamycin were well-known and could be
`
`used to modify rapamycin. Ex. 1118 ¶ 70.
`
`V. A POSA Would Not Have Reasonably Expected That
`Everolimus Would Retain Rapamycin’s Immunosuppressive Activity
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 25, line 18 to page 28, line 2, Dr. Jorgensen testified that
`
`the compound of Example 1 in the Kao ’447 patent (Ex. 2075) was tested in the
`
`skin graft assay, whereas the compound of Example 3 was not, and “you generally
`
`would test your best compounds in animal study. And compounds that you felt
`
`were less promising, you would not test necessarily, is what appears that has
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`happened in [the Kao ’447 patent].” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Jorgensen’s
`
`reasonable expectation of success opinions based on the biological data presented
`
`in Hughes (Ex. 1009) for compounds of Examples 1 and 2. Ex. 1118 ¶ 23. This
`
`testimony is relevant because only the compound of Hughes Example 1 was tested
`
`in the skin graft assay, and that compound did not display immunosuppressive
`
`activity (Paper 27, Patent Owner Response at 43; Ex. 2093 ¶¶ 120-125; Ex. 1009 at
`
`4:4-10); the compound of Hughes Example 2, which was not tested in the skin
`
`graft assay, would have been considered less promising according to Dr.
`
`Jorgensen.
`
`At Ex. 2222, page 55, line 2 to page 56, line 4, Dr. Jorgensen testified that
`
`there is no clear way for a POSA to identify whether any given compound meets
`
`his goal of retaining immunosuppressive activity, because he does not have any
`
`specific goal or “clear cutoff.” This testimony is relevant to Petitioners’ assertion
`
`that a POSA would have reasonably expected rapamycin derivatives to retain
`
`immunosuppressive activity. Reply 18-19; Ex. 1118 ¶¶ 107-108. This testimony
`
`is relevant because without knowing what specific goal the POSA here was
`
`seeking to achieve, Petitioners cannot establish a reasonable expectation of
`
`successfully achieving that goal.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination of William L. Jorgensen, Ph.D. was served on
`
`December 20, 2016 by causing it to be sent by email to counsel for Petitioners at
`
`the following email addresses:
`
`Daniel G. Brown (dan.brown@lw.com)
`
`Robert Steinberg (bob.steinberg@lw.com)
`
`Brenda L. Danek (Brenda.danek@lw.com)
`
`
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (jonathan.strang@lw.com)
`
`Matthew L. Fedowitz (mfedowitz@merchantgould.com)
`
`B. Jefferson Boggs (jboggs@merchantgould.com)
`
`Daniel R. Evans (devans@merchantgould.com)
`
`Keith A. Zullow (kzullow@goodwinlaw.com)
`
`Marta Delsignore (mdelsignore@goodwinprocter.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 20, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`/Nicholas N. Kallas/
`Nicholas N. Kallas
`Registration No. 31,530
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER
`& SCINTO
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104-3800
`Tel. 212-218-2100

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