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 MARK J. RATAIN, M.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.
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Reasonably Expected Everolimus’s
`Observed Antitumor Activity
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 11, lines 15-24, Dr. Ratain testified that his “opinions
`
`relate only to secondary considerations.” Dr. Ratain also admitted that he
`
`“can’t come up with any independent firsthand opinions related to the
`
`chemical modifications and the impact of such” because he is “not a
`
`chemist.” Ex. 2223 at 14:19-15:6. This testimony is relevant because Dr.
`
`Jorgensen did not address whether a POSA would have reasonably expected
`
`everolimus’s antitumor activity; thus, Drs. Burris’s and Roush’s opinions
`
`that a POSA would not have reasonably predicted what effect the difference
`
`in structure between rapamycin and everolimus would have on antitumor
`
`activity are unrebutted. Ex. 2095, Burris ¶¶ 86-89; Ex. 2093, Roush ¶ 156.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 18, line 9 to page 19, line 23, Dr. Ratain testified that
`
`all of the references he cited in support of his opinions in Ex. 1119, Ratain
`
`¶¶ 101-106 were published after 1992. Dr. Ratain also admitted that mTOR
`
`“had not yet been identified” in 1992. Ex. 2223 at 21:18-20; Ex. 1102, p.527
`
`(“mTOR was identified in 1994”). This testimony is relevant because it
`
`confirms that Petitioners improperly rely on post-invention date information
`
`to try to rebut Patent Owner’s evidence that a POSA would not have had a
`
`reasonable expectation that everolimus would have its observed antitumor
`
`activity. Paper No. 46 (“Reply”) at 17-18 FN 6.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`II.
`
`Petitioners Have Failed To Establish That Co-Administration
`Of Everolimus And Cyclosporine, And Everolimus’s Half-Life
`Do Not Provide Unexpected Clinical Benefits
`
`At Ex. 2223, page 204, line 20 to page 205, line 21, Dr. Ratain admitted
`
`that he is not an immunologist or a transplant nephrologist and has not
`
`prescribed immunosuppressants to transplant patients to induce
`
`immunosuppression. This testimony is relevant because it undermines the
`
`credibility and weight of Dr. Ratain’s opinions, especially when compared to
`
`those of Dr. Stefan Tullius—Petitioners’ transplant and immunosuppression
`
`expert in the related District Court litigation—who admitted that co-
`
`administration increases the likelihood that patients will adhere to an
`
`immunosuppressive drug regimen and provides clinical benefits. Paper No.
`
`27 (“Response”) at 57; Ex. 2132, Tullius Trial 1205:11-23, 1308:8-17.
`
`At Ex. 2223, page 206, line 22 to page 207, line 5, Dr. Ratain admitted
`
`that he did not know the recommended dosing regimen for cyclosporine in
`
`renal transplant patients. This testimony is relevant because it undermines
`
`the credibility and weight of Dr. Ratain’s opinions regarding whether
`
`physicians would prefer to prescribe everolimus to be taken once a day, or
`
`twice a day on the same schedule as cyclosporine, and medication adherence
`
`in transplant patients taking either rapamycin or everolimus with
`
`cyclosporin. Reply at 25-26 (citing Ex. 1118, Jorgensen ¶¶ 49-50).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`At Ex. 2223, page 205, line 22 to page 206, line 17, Dr. Ratain admitted
`
`that the Rapamune (rapamycin) label (Ex. 2053) at page 5, section 2.1,
`
`recommends that “Rapamune be taken 4 hours after administration of
`
`cyclosporine.” This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’
`
`assertion that there is no evidence that rapamycin and cyclosporine cannot
`
`be co-administered. Reply at 25.
`
`At Ex. 2223, page 212, line 25 to page 215, line 8, Dr. Ratain admitted
`
`that none of the references cited in Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 47 disclosed the half-
`
`lives of rapamycin analogs, and that a POSA would not have reasonably
`
`predicted the effect of chemical modification on rapamycin’s half-life or
`
`whether the half-life of any derivative would be shorter or longer, rather its
`
`half-life would have to be determined experimentally. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Petitioners’ assertion that everolimus’s half-
`
`life, which is significantly shorter than that of rapamycin, would not have
`
`been unexpected. Reply at 25-26. There is no evidence of what a POSA
`
`would have reasonably expected everolimus’ half-life to be, or that a POSA
`
`would have reasonably expected chemical modification to rapamycin to
`
`result in a half-life that provides clinical benefits.
`
`At Ex. 2223, page 207, lines 6-22, Dr. Ratain admitted that Ex. 1055
`
`“was not looking at the medical adherence in patients taking cyclosporine
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`with either everolimus or rapamycin.” At Ex. 2223, page 211, lines 8 to page
`
`212, line 24, Dr. Ratain further admitted that the clinical trial reported in Ex.
`
`1057 was not completed and results for the trial were not reported. At Ex.
`
`2223, page 207, lines 10 to page 211, line 7, Dr. Ratain also admitted that
`
`Ex. 1056 stated that in a study comparing mycophenolate mofetil (MMF)
`
`twice-daily and rapamycin once-daily adherence rates, “there was no
`
`statistically significant difference between once-daily and twice-daily
`
`dosing.” This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that none of the
`
`cited references support Dr. Ratain’s assertion that rapamycin’s longer half-
`
`life allows for once-daily dosing, which leads to improved adherence and
`
`clinical outcomes. Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶¶ 49-50; Reply at 26.
`
`III. Compelling Objective Indicia Further Support Non-Obviousness
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 12, line 11 to page 13, line 2, Dr. Ratain admitted that
`
`he has not offered any opinions regarding failure of others, industry praise,
`
`or commercial success. This is relevant because it confirms that Dr. Burris’s
`
`following opinions are unrebutted: (a) prior to 1992, numerous other
`
`therapies had failed for both advanced RCC and breast cancer (Response at
`
`62-63), (b) numerous physicians have praised everolimus (Response at 66),
`
`and (c) Afinitor® has achieved significant commercial success due to its
`
`active ingredient, everolimus (Response at 66). Likewise, Patent Owner’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`evidence that others tried and failed to develop rapamycin derivatives for
`
`preventing transplant rejection is unrebutted. Response at 67.
`
`A. Everolimus Satisfied Long-Felt But Unmet
`Medical Needs In Advanced RCC And Breast Cancer
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 187, lines 15-25, Dr. Ratain agreed that a long-felt
`
`need existed in October 1992 for new safe and effective therapies for
`
`advanced RCC and breast cancer. And Dr. Ratain admitted that everolimus
`
`is safe and effective for advanced RCC and breast cancer. Ex. 2223 at 188:2-
`
`11. Dr. Ratain further admitted that temsirolimus was developed after 1992
`
`(Ex. 2223 at 196:11-18) and cabozantinib and nivolumab were approved for
`
`RCC after everolimus (Ex. 2223 at 192:10-12, 192:23-193:2). This is
`
`relevant because the long-felt need must only be unmet at the invention date
`
`and need to be unmet when the invention becomes available on the market.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 190, line 19 to page 191, line 8, Dr. Ratain agreed that
`
`rapamycin was only tested and approved as an immunosuppressant before
`
`everolimus. Dr. Ratain further admitted that still today, rapamycin is not
`
`approved for any anticancer indication. Ex. 2223 at 130:17-21. This is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Dr. Ratain’s opinion that “any long-felt need
`
`met by everolimus in regard to advanced RCC or advanced breast cancer
`
`was first met by rapamycin.” Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 109.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`B.
`
`Everolimus Has Demonstrated Unexpected Results
`
`1.
`
`Everolimus Unexpectedly Has Antitumor Activity
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 198, lines 9-12, Dr. Ratain admitted that “prior to
`
`October of 1992, there was no data on the antitumor activity of rapamycin
`
`from testing in humans.” This is relevant because Dr. Ratain admitted that
`
`activity in the in vivo tumor models did not predict activity in humans. Ex.
`
`2145, Ratain Trial 1000:8-12; Ex. 2095, Burris ¶¶ 82-84.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 67, lines 14-21, Dr. Ratain admitted that the source of
`
`the information in Houchens regarding the believed mechanism of in vivo
`
`antitumor activity of rapamycin was from a “well-regarded pharmaceutical
`
`scientist.” This is relevant because Houchens suggested that rapamycin
`
`exerted its antitumor activity by inhibiting DNA synthesis, which is different
`
`from rapamycin’s suggested mechanism of immunosuppressive activity. Ex.
`
`2095, Burris ¶ 85; Ex. 2157, Houchens p.803; Ex. 2160, Baumann p.4. Thus,
`
`a POSA would not have reasonably expected everolimus to have antitumor
`
`activity because of the different mechanisms of action. Response at 59.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 27, line 17 to page 28, line 7, Dr. Ratain admitted that
`
`“cytostatic” describes a mechanism of action distinct from “cytotoxic.” See
`
`also Ex. 2223 at 70:7-19 (confirming the understanding of “cytotoxic” in
`
`1992). This is relevant because, as of October 1992, the literature suggested
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`that rapamycin exerted its antitumor activity by inhibiting DNA synthesis,
`
`i.e., a “cytotoxic” mechanism, whereas the literature suggested rapamycin
`
`exerted its immunosuppressive activity by preventing cell cycle progression,
`
`i.e., a “cytostatic” mechanism. Ex. 2095, Burris ¶ 85; Ex. 2157, Houchens
`
`p.803; Ex. 2160, Baumann p.4; Ex. 1034, Fiebig p.116 (reporting that
`
`rapamycin “inhibits DNA synthesis by interference with thymidine
`
`incorporation” and has “high cytotoxic potency” in in vitro antitumor tests).
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 37, lines 6-10 and page 41, lines 3-8, Dr. Ratain
`
`admitted that he has published a paper in which “information [was] included
`
`that was received by one of the authors by personal communication.” Dr.
`
`Ratain also admitted that he cited exhibits—Ex. 1058 p.516 (endnote 28);
`
`Ex. 1103 p.627; Ex. 1046 p.8 (endnote 16), p.9 (endnote 55)—that included
`
`information received by personal communication. Ex. 2223 at 43:3-11,
`
`52:21-24, 62:21-63:23, 64:2-66:17. And Dr. Ratain considered such exhibits
`
`reliable. Ex. 2223 at 9:13-16. This is relevant because it confirms that the
`
`information in Houchens on rapamycin’s mechanism of antitumor activity
`
`was not unreliable because it was received by personal communication.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 28, lines 9-14 and page 29, lines 14-20, Dr. Ratain
`
`admitted that he co-authored a paper reporting that “as of 1977, the
`
`inhibitory effect of rapamycin on the immune system had been recognized in
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`rats.” This is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Ratain’s opinion that the
`
`immunosuppressive activity of rapamycin was not reported until 1989, i.e.,
`
`after Houchens was published. Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 34.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 88, lines 4-10 and page 89, lines 7-15, Dr. Ratain
`
`admitted that he did not “see anything directed towards anticancer
`
`properties” in Schreiber (Ex. 1012). This is relevant because it demonstrates
`
`that Houchens reflects the understanding in the art as of October 1992 as to
`
`the believed mechanism of rapamycin’s antitumor activity. Thus, Dr.
`
`Ratain’s criticism of Dr. Burris’s reliance on Houchens because of the time
`
`gap between its publication and the ’772 patent invention date is meritless.
`
`Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 35; Ex. 2223 at Ex. 67:22-69:8.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 91, lines 11-16, and page 92, lines 6-13, Dr. Ratain
`
`admitted that, prior to October 1992, it had been reported that FK506 (a
`
`known immunosuppressant agent (Ex. 2223 at 88:6-89:6; Ex. 1012,
`
`Schreiber at Abstract)) bound to FKBP in calf thymus and the human T cell
`
`line Jurkat. This is relevant because, as of October 1992, FK506 was
`
`reported to be “immunosuppressive but not to inhibit tumor growth in vivo.”
`
`Ex. 1005, Morris at 52. Thus, contrary to Dr. Ratain’s assertion (Ex. 1119,
`
`Ratain ¶ 36; Ex. 2223 at 22:5-15, 23:19-24:16), a POSA would not have
`
`believed rapamycin’s antitumor activity was mediated by FKBP binding.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Indeed, Dr. Ratain does not cite any publication suggesting that FKBP
`
`binding was believed to mediate rapamycin’s antitumor activity.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 72, lines 6-18; page 80, lines 3-25; page 81, lines 3-24;
`
`page 82, lines 3-6; page 86, lines 15-21; page 86, line 23 to page 87, line 3;
`
`and page 87, line 16 to page 88, line 2, Dr. Ratain admitted that none of the
`
`patents disclosing C40 modified rapamycin derivatives on which he relied—
`
`Exs. 1011, 2130, 2075, 2046 (Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 43)—contains “any data
`
`from any tests that are used to determine antitumor or anticancer activity.”
`
`This is relevant because it supports Dr. Burris’s and Dr. Roush’s opinions
`
`that the antitumor properties of everolimus are unexpected. Ex. 2095, Burris
`
`¶¶ 73-99, 100-133; Ex. 2093, Roush ¶ 229, 155-156.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 70, lines 4-6, Dr. Ratain admitted that esorubicin is
`
`an analog of doxorubicin. Dr. Ratain also admitted that, as of October 1992,
`
`doxorubicin was known to be effective for breast cancer. Ex. 2223 at 70:20-
`
`23. But esorubicin was reported to be “not an effective agent for the
`
`treatment of advanced breast cancer.” Ex. 1039, Rankin p.1080. This is
`
`relevant because it confirms that a POSA would not have expected
`
`everolimus to have antitumor activity just because it is a rapamycin analog.
`
`Ex. 2095, Burris ¶¶ 95-97.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Everolimus Unexpectedly Has FDA
`Approval For Six Antitumor Indications
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 186, lines 13-23, Dr. Ratain testified that unexpected
`
`results require an analysis of “whether or not [any] difference would have
`
`been unexpected to a POSA in October 1992.” This is significant because
`
`whereas everolimus is FDA approved for six antitumor indications (Ex.
`
`2095, Burris ¶ 24), Dr. Ratain admitted that rapamycin is not approved for
`
`any anticancer indication. Ex. 2223 at 130:17-21. And Ratain previously
`
`conceded, a POSA “could not have predicted that everolimus would achieve
`
`its approved indications in 1992.” Ex. 2145, Ratain Trial 971:3-9.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 187, lines 4-7, Dr. Ratain testified that FDA approval
`
`could be an unexpected result, if it is due to a difference in properties. This
`
`is relevant because there have been at least 10 Phase I and II clinical trials of
`
`rapamycin (Ex. 2182), the Acevedo rapamycin “clinical trial was funded by
`
`Genentech” (Ex. 2177 p.165), and the Gonzalez nab-rapamycin trial was
`
`“sponsored by Celgene” (Ex. 2173 p.5483). Thus, there has been ample
`
`funding for the development of rapamycin as an antitumor agent, including
`
`from large pharmaceutical companies. Contrary to Dr. Ratain’s assertions
`
`(Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶¶ 52, 61, 63, 70, 108; Ex. 2223 at 215:16-23), the
`
`absence of FDA approval of rapamycin for the same antitumor indications as
`
`everolimus is not simply due to a lack of funding.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`In Ex. 2223, page 159, lines 15-19, Dr. Ratain admitted that Acevedo
`
`(Ex. 2177) did not demonstrate effectiveness2 of rapamycin in the treatment
`
`of breast cancer. Dr. Ratain also admitted that the (a) Chan clinical trial
`
`(Ex. 1086) was not “designed to demonstrate effectiveness” of temsirolimus
`
`in breast cancer (Ex. 2223 at 159:20-24, 162:14-17); (b) Duran clinical trial
`
`(Ex. 2174) “was not a trial that demonstrates effectiveness” of temsirolimus
`
`in neuroendocrine carcinomas (Ex. 2223 at 141:20-25); and (c) Gonzalez
`
`(Ex. 2173) did not “demonstrate effectiveness of nab-rapamycin in any
`
`particular type of cancer,” including RCC (Ex. 2223 at 153:15-20). This is
`
`significant because it confirms that neither rapamycin nor temsirolimus has
`
`demonstrated the same clinical efficacy as everolimus. Ex. 2095, Burris ¶¶
`
`105-133. In fact, Sabitini confirms that temsirolimus did not show “good
`
`
`2 Dr. Ratain testified that he uses the terms “efficacy” and “activity”
`
`interchangeably. Ex. 2223 at 100:16-101:15. In his opinion, if a drug causes
`
`a tumor to get smaller or prevents the tumor from growing in one patient,
`
`that is sufficient for evidence of antitumor activity. Ex. 2223 at 104:19-
`
`105:6. Effectiveness is a different concept from efficacy or activity; it refers
`
`to whether a drug will work in large populations and it generally requires a
`
`Phase III randomized clinical trial. Ex. 2223 at 119:7-120:17.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`anti-tumor activity against...breast cancers.” Ex. 1105, Sabitini p.731.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 142, lines 2-14, Dr. Ratain admitted that in support of
`
`his opinions that temsirolimus has activity in neuroendocrine carcinomas
`
`(Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 81), he compared the everolimus clinical trial and the
`
`Duran temsirolimus clinical trial results. This is relevant because Dr. Ratain
`
`previously testified that such interstudy comparisons are problematic
`
`“because you have no idea whether the patients in the other study resemble
`
`the patients in the current study.” Ex 2145, Ratain Trial at 1010:10-19.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 32, lines 13-18, Dr. Ratain admitted that the peer
`
`review process “increases the probability that something is reliable.” He
`
`further admitted that “[a]bstracts, with rare exception, are generally
`
`published as submitted;” they are not peer-reviewed. Ex. 2223 at 36:5-9.
`
`This is relevant because the Bhattacharyya rapamycin breast cancer clinical
`
`trial has only been reported as an abstract and Dr. Ratain admitted that he
`
`does not know the final results of the trial. Ex. 2223 at 168:5-11.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 154, lines 5-25, Dr. Ratain admitted that the
`
`Bhattacharyya clinical trial enrolled patients from 2004 to 2010, identified
`
`two primary end points, and drew conclusions on pharmacoeconomics and
`
`safety. This is relevant because Dr. Burris opined that there are numerous
`
`reasons to be skeptical of the Bhattacharyya results including (a) patients
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`were enrolled over an unusually long period during which the standard of
`
`care for breast cancer may have changed, (b) statisticians usually require one
`
`primary endpoint, not two, and there is no statistical analysis of the results,
`
`and (c) the conclusions do not relate to efficacy. Ex. 2095, Burris ¶ 127.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 141, lines 15-19, Dr. Ratain admitted that “mTOR
`
`inhibitors are not agents where you would expect to see a high response
`
`rate.” This is relevant because Dr. Ratain opines Bhattacharyya reported
`
`“that breast cancer patients who received rapamycin and tamoxifen (an
`
`estrogen receptor inhibitor) showed significant response rates.” Ex. 1119,
`
`Ratain ¶ 64. Thus, the reported response rates are another reason to be
`
`skeptical of the Bhattacharyya abstract.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 162, lines 22-25; page 163, line 14 to page 164, line 5;
`
`and page 165, line 20 to page 166, line 24, Dr. Ratain admitted that Ex.
`
`1081, Arena states that “larger trials are necessary before sirolimus can be
`
`used to treat patients with advanced breast cancer” and Ex. 1082, Palmieri
`
`states that “final results of this trial are awaited.” This is relevant because
`
`Dr. Ratain cited these references in support of his opinion that “a variety of
`
`different publications have favorably cited the Bhattacharyya study.” Ex.
`
`1119, Ratain ¶ 71. His admissions confirm that rapamycin has not
`
`demonstrated confirmed clinical efficacy in advanced breast cancer and the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`results in the Bhattacharyya study are preliminary. Arena further states that
`
`“[e]verolimus represents the first and only targeted agent approved for
`
`combatting endocrine resistance.” Ex. 1081 at Abstract. See also Ex. 1084,
`
`p.9 (recommending the use of everolimus, not rapamycin); Ex. 1085, p.27
`
`(identifying everolimus as an agent with proven activity, not rapamycin).
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 178, line 25 to page 179, line 20 and page 184, line 25
`
`to page 185, line 19, Dr. Ratain admitted that he does not have the expertise
`
`to opine on whether the rapamycin clinical trials in TSC patients with SEGA
`
`or renal angiomyolipoma—Lam (Ex. 1099), Franz (Ex. 1098) and Bissler
`
`NEJM (Ex. 1093)—demonstrate effectiveness. This is significant because
`
`Dr. Bissler, an expert in TSC (Ex. 1094, Bissler Trial at 583:22-584:6),
`
`testified that rapamycin has not shown effectiveness in the treatment of
`
`SEGAs (Ex. 1094, Bissler Trial at 610:17-611:7) or the reduction of
`
`angiomyolipoma volume (Ex. 1094, Bissler Trial 653:20-654:1) and that
`
`Bissler NEJM reported “important limitations, including the open label
`
`design and the lack of control group and the small number of patients” (Ex.
`
`1094, Bissler Trial 651:7-13; Ex. 1093, Bissler NEJM p.150-151). Dr.
`
`Ratain admitted that he did not discuss any of the trial limitations reported in
`
`Bissler NEJM. Ex. 2223 at 176:19-177:2. He also mischaracterized Dr.
`
`Bissler’s opinions (Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶ 90). Consistent with Dr. Bissler’s
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`opinions, each of Lam, Franz and Bissler NEJM reports the need for further
`
`trials to demonstrate the effectiveness of rapamycin in TSC; Dr. Ratain cited
`
`no such studies. Ex. 1099, Lam p.479; Ex. 1098, Franz p.498; Ex. 1093,
`
`Bissler NEJM p.151; Ex. 2223 at 179:21-180:20, 18:2-11.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 71, lines 9-12, Dr. Ratain admitted that esorubicin and
`
`doxorubicin are both members of the same class of drugs, anthracyclines.
`
`This is relevant because esorubicin and doxorubicin have different clinical
`
`activity. Ex. 2223 at 70:20-23; Ex. 1039, Rankin p.1080. Thus, contrary to
`
`Dr. Ratain’s assertions (Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶¶ 101-102), the fact that
`
`rapamycin and everolimus are both mTOR inhibitors does not mean that
`
`they have the same clinical efficacy. Indeed, Dr. Ratain admitted that the
`
`mechanism of action of the mTOR inhibitors is not completely understood
`
`and there is still more to learn. Ex. 2223 at 170:12-171:15.
`
`In Ex. 2223, page 71, lines 20-23, Dr. Ratain admitted that esorubicin
`
`and its parent doxorubicin were reported to have comparable in vivo
`
`antitumor activity. However, esorubicin and doxorubicin have different
`
`clinical activity. Ex. 2223 at 70:20-23; Ex. 1039, Rankin at 1080. This is
`
`relevant because it contradicts Dr. Ratain’s assertion (Ex. 1119, Ratain ¶¶
`
`59-60) that comparable in vivo antitumor activity is evidence of similar
`
`clinical efficacy.
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Mark J. Ratain, M.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