IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., BRECKENRIDGE PPLARMACEUTICAL, INC., AND ALEMBIC
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2016—0O2041
`
`Patent No. RE 38,551
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF
`
`PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
`
`OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF A PROPER REPLY AND IMPROPER
`
`TECHNIQUES THAT CIRCUMVENT WORD COUNT
`
`1 Case IPR2016—O1101, Case IPR2016-01242, and Case IPR2016—01245 have been
`
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`DC: 62921 183
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`ARGENTUM PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS
`INC., BRECKENRIDGE PPLARMACEUTICAL, INC., AND ALEMBIC
`PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`RESEARCH CORPORATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case No. IPR2016—0O2041
`
`Patent No. RE 38,551
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S IDENTIFICATION OF
`
`PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS AND EVIDENCE
`
`OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF A PROPER REPLY AND IMPROPER
`
`TECHNIQUES THAT CIRCUMVENT WORD COUNT
`
`1 Case IPR2016—O1101, Case IPR2016-01242, and Case IPR2016—01245 have been
`
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`DC: 62921 183
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00204
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s authorization (EX. 2191), Patent Owner hereby
`
`identifies Petitioners’ arguments and evidence outside the scope of a proper Reply,
`
`and the improper techniques that circumvent word count.
`
`I.
`
`Arguments and evidence relating to the LeGall Thesis
`
`See Reply § XIII, p. 28 1. 13—p. 29 1. 7 (“Certain POR arguments are plainly
`
`rebutted by LeGall’s express
`
`teaching that
`
`lacosamide
`
`‘may have good
`
`anticonvulsant activity’ given the ‘close structural analogy of this compound with
`
`86b.’ ...”) (emphasis in original); Reply p. 27 11. 4-7 & 11. 11-15, p. 18 11. 7-8; EX.
`
`1084 W 210, 193, 173, 160, 16, 145 (including Table); Ex. 1084 if 196, p. 74, 11.
`
`12-14; EX. 1084 ‘ll 220, p. 81, 11. 10-12; EX. 1084 ‘ll 71, p. 28, 11. 1-4; Ex. 1156 and
`
`Ex. 2035, 62:7-10, 252:16-253:20 (new evidence regarding public accessibility);
`
`cf Institution Decision (Paper 19) p. 12, ll. 15-18 (“. .
`
`. we are not persuaded that
`
`Petitioner has made a threshold showing that the LeGall thesis was sufficiently
`
`publicly accessible to qualify as a ‘printed publication’ under § 102(b).”).
`
`II.
`
`The ’301 patent as rationale to support Compound 31
`
`Reply p. 9, 1. 19—p. 10, 1. 1 & p. 2, 11. 1-2 (“the prior art taught a clear path
`
`from Compound 31
`
`[methoxyamino],
`
`specifically claimed in the ‘729/’30l
`
`patents”); Reply p. 9, 11. 10-12 (“the fact that the ‘729/’30l patents expressly
`
`covered and claimed Compound 31 [methoxyamino] would confirm a POSA’s
`
`reasonable expectation of the lead compound’s utility”); See Ex. 1084 ‘H 73 (“... a
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00204
`
`POSA looking at these two patents [(i.e., ’30l & ’729)] in 1996 would have come
`
`to the conclusion that FAAS are potential lead compounds ...”); Reply p. 13, 1. 17-
`p. 14, l. 3; Reply p. 7, l. 17-p. 8, l. 2; Ex. 1084 1111 60, 123-25, 97-99, 24-30, 104,
`
`185, 197, 213-14; cf. Petition §§ VII.E & VII.F (Grounds 3A & 3B); Petition p. 46,
`
`1. 19-p. 47, 1. 3 (“methoxymethyl is specifically claimed .
`
`.
`
`. in the ‘30l patent”)
`
`(emphasis added); Petition p. 19, 1. 11-p. 21, l. 11 & Ex. 1002, 1111 44-49, 123 (no
`
`mention of methoxyamino).
`
`III. Unmet need arguments based on levetiracetam (Keppra®)
`
`Reply, p. 21, l. 8-p. 22, 1. 13 (“levetiracetam (Keppra) meets the alleged
`
`‘unmet need”’); Ex. 1087 § XIII, 1111 95-117 (“Levetiracetam Satisfied the Long-
`
`Felt Need Identified by Dr. Bazil
`
`”); Reply p. 1, 11. 10-12 & 15-16, p. 6, 11. 8-10,
`
`p. 17,11. 12-13, p. 18,11. 1-2 & 14-15, p. 20,11. 1-2 & 8-10; Ex. 1087 W 40-53, 60-
`
`64, 71, 78, 82, 89, 118-26, 133-38, 143, 148-59; Ex. 1084 1111 63, 71, 204-06, 221,
`
`59, p. 22, 11. 11-17; cf Petition p. 54, 11. 7-12 (“any alleged unmet need
`
`must be
`
`evaluated against
`
`lacosamide’s
`
`rivals
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time—including gabapentin,
`
`lamotrigine, felbamate, and Vigabatrin”) (no mention of levetiracetam).
`
`IV.
`
`Improper techniques that circumvent the word count by 195 words
`
`Reply p. 2, 11. 3-5 & 7-11, top image (17 words), middle image (42 words);
`
`Reply p. 11, 11. 6-7 & 12-18, top image (12 words), bottom image (54 words);
`
`Reply (throughout) (EX.# not EX. #, 140 words); cf Petition & Ex. 1084 (Ex. #).
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 5 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IPR2016-00204
`
`
`
`Registration;/No.2 36,253
`Jennifer L. Robbins
`
`Registration No.: 61,163
`
`Enrique D. Longton
`
`Registration No.: 47,304
`
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`
`One CityCenter, 850 Tenth Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`(202) 662-6000
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6,
`
`I hereby certify that on this 5th day of
`
`December 2016,
`
`the foregoing Patent Owner’s Identification of Petitioners’
`
`Arguments and Evidence Outside the Scope of a Proper Reply and Improper
`
`Techniques that Circumvent Word Count was served by electronic mail, by
`
`agreement of the parties, on the following counsel of record for Petitioners.
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016—O0204)
`Matthew J. Dowd (mjdowd@dowdpllc.com)
`DOWD PLLC
`
`William G. Jenks (wjenks@jenksiplaw.com)
`JENKS IP LAW
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016—01 101)
`Steven W. Parmelee (sparmelee@wsgr.com)
`Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`Jad A. Mills (jmills@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016-01242)
`Matthew L. Fedowitz (mfedowitz@merchantgould.com)
`Daniel R. Evans (devans@merchantgould.com)
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`
`PETITIONER (IPR2016—01245)
`Gary J . Speier (gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com)
`Jeffer Ali (ja1i@carlsoncaspers.com)
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH, LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, P.A.
`
`Date: December 5, 2016
`
`Reg. No.: 36,253
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
