throbber
Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`SANDOZ INC.,
`APOTEX INC., and APOTEX CORP.,
`EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
`HERITAGE PHARMA LABS INC.,
`HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., USA,
`GLENMARK HOLDING SA,
`GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., MYLAN LABORATORIES
`LIMITED, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS,
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC and WOCKHARDT BIO AG
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY,
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`
`Case No: IPR2016-003181
`Patent No. 7,772,209
`__________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2016-01429, IPR2016-01393, and IPR2016-01340 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`Patent Owner Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) hereby objects pursuant to 37
`
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) and the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) to the
`
`admissibility of certain purported evidence served by Petitioner Sandoz Inc. on
`
`December 22, 2016 in connection with its Petition for Inter Partes Review. The
`
`exhibits objected to, and grounds for Lilly’s objections, are listed below. Lilly also
`
`objects to Petitioner’s reliance on or citations to any objected evidence in its
`
`papers.
`
`Many of the exhibits served by Sandoz Inc. on December 22, 2016 were
`
`introduced at depositions in this proceeding, and Lilly objected to certain of those
`
`exhibits at the depositions as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a). Nothing contained
`
`herein shall be deemed to withdraw any of Lilly’s objections to deposition
`
`evidence or the requirement that evidence to cure those objections must have been
`
`provided during the deposition, see id.
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGED EVIDENCE AND GROUNDS
`FOR OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 1063
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1063 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1063 contains a web page purportedly
`
`available to the public in 2001. Exhibit 1063 therefore bears no relevance to what
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`Therefore, Exhibit 1063 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Lilly further
`
`objects to Exhibit 1063 because it has not been properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined
`
`by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 1063 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and
`
`1003.
`
`Exhibit 1067
`
`B.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1067 under FRE 802 because it is inadmissible
`
`hearsay, specifically a portion of a demonstrative exhibit from a different
`
`proceeding, Eli Lilly v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc. et al., 1:10-cv-01376-TWP-
`
`DKL (S.D. Ind.). Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1067 under FRE 402 and 403
`
`because it is irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
`
`danger of wasting time and needlessly presenting cumulative evidence in this
`
`compressed proceeding. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1067 because it has not
`
`been properly authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE
`
`902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 1067 is therefore
`
`inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003. Lilly also objects to Exhibit 1067
`
`because it is incomplete, and it therefore should be excluded under FRE 106, 401,
`
`402, and 403.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`C. Exhibit 1071
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1071 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1071 contains a web page purportedly
`
`available to the public in 2016. Exhibit 1071 therefore bears no relevance to what
`
`the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`Therefore, Exhibit 1071 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Lilly further
`
`objects to Exhibit 1071 because it has not been properly authenticated under FRE
`
`901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined
`
`by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 1071 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and
`
`1003.
`
`D. Exhibit 1074
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1074, the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Bruce
`
`Chabner, as incomplete because Petitioner has not filed all exhibits introduced at
`
`the deposition, including the exhibits Lilly introduced on redirect. It therefore
`
`should be excluded under FRE 106, 401, 402, and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1075
`
`E.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1075, the reply declaration of Dr. Ron D. Schiff,
`
`under FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant or inadmissible
`
`information and under FRE 403 to the extent that it includes or relies on
`
`information—such as Exhibit 1078—the probative value of which is substantially
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, wasting time, or needlessly
`
`presenting cumulative evidence. See, e.g., Ex. 1075 at 36.
`
`Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1075 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the
`
`basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been properly authenticated or
`
`lack foundation, such as Exhibit 1089. See, e.g., Ex. 1075 at 18.
`
`Exhibit 1076
`
`F.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1076 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on it as prior art or as reflecting the state of the prior art because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1076 was created in 2000 by
`
`individuals at Lilly who had knowledge of the invention and was not available to
`
`the public; it therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`G. Exhibit 1077
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1077 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on it as prior art or as reflecting the state of the prior art because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1077 was created on
`
`December 3, 1999 by individuals at Lilly who had knowledge of the invention and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`was not available to the public; it therefore bears no relevance to what the person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`H. Exhibit 1078
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1078 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1078 was published in 2002 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1078 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1079
`
`I.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1079 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1079 was published in 2003 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1079 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1080
`
`J.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1080 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1080 was published in 2004 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1080 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`K. Exhibit 1081
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1081 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1081 was published in 2012 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1081 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1082
`
`L.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1082 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1082 contains web pages purportedly
`
`available to the public in 2001 and later. Exhibit 1082 therefore bears no relevance
`
`to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known by the relevant
`
`date. Therefore, Exhibit 1082 should be excluded under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`M. Exhibit 1083
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1083 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1083 was published in 2001 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1083 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`N. Exhibit 1084
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1084 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on it as prior art or as reflecting the state of the prior art because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1084 was created in 2000 by
`
`individuals at Lilly who had knowledge of the invention and was not available to
`
`the public; it therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`O. Exhibit 1085
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1085 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on it as prior art or as reflecting the state of the prior art because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1085 was created in 2000 by
`
`individuals at Lilly who had knowledge of the invention and was not available to
`
`the public; it therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`Exhibit 1086
`
`P.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1086 as incomplete because it does not include the
`
`relevant errata sheet served on Petitioner on December 28, 2016 and because
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`Petitioner has not filed all exhibits introduced at the deposition. It therefore should
`
`be excluded under FRE 106, 401, 402, and 403.
`
`Q. Exhibit 1088
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1088 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent Petitioner
`
`relies on it as prior art or as reflecting the state of the prior art because it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1088 was created in 2001 by
`
`individuals at Lilly who had knowledge of the invention and was not available to
`
`the public; it therefore bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have known by the relevant date.
`
`R. Exhibit 1089
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1089 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1089 was published in 2002 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1089 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`Exhibit 1091
`
`S.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1091, the reply declaration of Dr. Patrick J. Stover,
`
`under FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant or inadmissible
`
`information and under FRE 403 to the extent that it includes or relies on
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`information the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger
`
`of unfair prejudice, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1091 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the
`
`basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been properly authenticated or
`
`lack foundation, such as Exhibit 1109. See, e.g., Ex. 1091 at 9.
`
`Exhibit 1092
`
`T.
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1092 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent that it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Although Exhibit 1092 indicates it
`
`was published in 1999, Exhibit 1092 does not indicate when in 1999 it was
`
`published. To the extent Exhibit 1092 is not prior art, it should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`U. Exhibit 1093
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1093, the declaration of Dr. David B. Ross, under
`
`FRE 402 to the extent it includes or relies on irrelevant or inadmissible information
`
`and under FRE 403 to the extent that it includes or relies on information the
`
`probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
`
`prejudice, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1093 under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003 on the
`
`basis that it cites or relies on exhibits that have not been properly authenticated or
`
`lack foundation.
`
`Lilly also objects to Exhibit 1093 because it does not comply with FRE 602,
`
`FRE 702-703, the requirements for an expert declaration, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65,
`
`including that it improperly includes opinions without having demonstrated the
`
`requisite expertise, basis, methodology or foundation. Exhibit 1093 contains
`
`content over which the testifier has no personal knowledge, as well as putative
`
`expert testimony that is unqualified, unreliable, and based on facts or data that
`
`experts in the field would not reasonably rely upon. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`V. Exhibit 1096
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1096 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1096 was published in 2015 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1096 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`W. Exhibit 1097
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1097 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1097 was purportedly published in 2010 and,
`
`therefore, bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have known by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1097 should be excluded
`
`under FRE 402 and 403.
`
`X. Exhibit 1098
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1098 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1098 was published in 2007 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1098 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`Y. Exhibit 1099
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1099 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1099 was purportedly published in 2002 and
`
`is dated 2016 and, therefore, bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have known by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1099 should
`
`be excluded under FRE 402 and 403. Lilly further objects to Exhibit 1099 because
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`it has not been properly authenticated under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating
`
`under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate” as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 1099
`
`is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901, 1002, and 1003.
`
`Z.
`Exhibit 1100
`Exhibit 1100 purports to describe a table with reference ranges for, inter
`
`alia, creatinine, but that exhibit is incomplete. Exhibit 1100 includes only a
`
`portion of the excerpted table with no description of that table or the data contained
`
`therein. Therefore, Exhibit 1100 should be excluded under FRE 106, 401, 402,
`
`and 403.
`
`AA. Exhibit 1104
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1104 under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant
`
`and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in
`
`this compressed proceeding. Exhibit 1104 was published in 2000 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date. Therefore, Exhibit 1104 should be excluded under FRE 402
`
`and 403.
`
`BB. Exhibit 1106
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1106 under FRE 402 and 403 to the extent that it is
`
`irrelevant and its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
`
`wasting time in this compressed proceeding. Although Exhibit 1106 indicates it
`
`was published in 1999, Exhibit 1106 does not indicate when in 1999 it was
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`published. To the extent Exhibit 1106 is not prior art, it should be excluded under
`
`FRE 402 and 403.
`
`CC. Exhibit 1109
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1109 because it has not been properly authenticated
`
`under FRE 901, is not self-authenticating under FRE 902, and is not a “duplicate”
`
`as defined by FRE 1001(e). Exhibit 1109 is therefore inadmissible under FRE 901,
`
`1002, and 1003.
`
`DD. Exhibit 1119
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1119 to the extent Petitioner relies on it as prior art
`
`under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant and its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding. Exhibit 1119 was not available to the public in 1999 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date.
`
`EE. Exhibit 1120
`Lilly objects to Exhibit 1120 to the extent Petitioner relies on it as prior art
`
`under FRE 402 and 403 because it is irrelevant and its probative value is
`
`substantially outweighed by the danger of wasting time in this compressed
`
`proceeding. Exhibit 1120 was not available to the public in 1999 and, therefore,
`
`bears no relevance to what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`by the relevant date.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dov P. Grossman/
`Dov P. Grossman
`Reg. No. 72,525
`Lead Counsel for
`Patent Owner
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`202-434-5812 (Telephone)
`202-434-5029 (Facsimile)
`dgrossman@wc.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`Date: December 30, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`(37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served on
`
`
`
`December 30, 2016 by delivering a copy via electronic mail on the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Reg. No. 34,167
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`
`Joshua H. James
`Reg. No. 72,568
`jjames@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`Chicago, IL 60611-5599
`T: 312-321-4200; F: 312-321-4299
`
`Bryan T. Richardson, Ph.D.
`Reg. No. 70,572
`brichardson@brinksgilson.com
`
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`4721 Emperor Blvd.
`Suite 220
`Durham, NC 27703-8580
`T: 919-998-5700; F: 919-998-5701
`
`Counsel for Sandoz Inc.
`
`John D. Polivick
`Reg. No. 57,926
`jpolivick@rmmslegal.com
`
`William A. Rakoczy
`
`
`
`Laura Lydigsen
`Pro hac vice
`llydigsen@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Deanne M. Mazzochi
`Reg. No. 50,158
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`
`Patrick C. Kilgore
`
`
`
`

`
`Pro hac vice to be filed
`wrakoczy@rmmslegal.com
`
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500
`Chicago, IL
`P: 312-527-2157/F: 312-527-4205
`
`Attorneys for Apotex Inc. and Apotex
`Corp.
`
`Thomas J. Parker
`Reg. No. 42,062
`thomas.parker@alston.com
`
`Alston & Bird LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`P: 212-210-9529/F: 212-210-9444
`
`Counsel for Mylan Laboratories Limited
`
`Gerard A. Haddad
`Reg. No. 41,811
`GHaddad@BlankRome.com
`
`Blank Rome LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10174
`P: 212-885-5135/F: 917-591-6921
`
`Counsel for Glenmark Pharmaceuticals
`Inc., USA, Glenmark Holding SA, and
`Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
`
`Paul M. Zagar
`Reg. No. 52,392
`PZagar@BlankRome.com
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`Reg. No. 69,131
`pkilgore@rmmslegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Blank Rome LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10174
`P: 212-885-5290/F: 917-332-3063
`
`Counsel for Emcure Pharmaceuticals
`Ltd., Heritage Pharma Labs Inc., and
`Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`Patrick A. Doody
`Reg. No. 35,022
`patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com
`
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`P: 703-770-7755/F: 703-770-7901
`
`Counsel for Wockhardt Bio AG
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Reg. No. 45,458
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh,
`Lindquist & Schuman
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`P: 612-436-9600
`F: 612-436-9605
`
`Cynthia Lambert Hardman
`Reg. No. 53,179
`chardman@goodwinprocter.com
`
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`The New York Times Building
`620 Eighth Avenue
`New York, NY 10018-1405
`
`
`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`Bryan P. Collins
`Reg. No. 43,560
`bryan.collins@pillsburylaw.com
`
`
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Reg. No. 31,197
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR 2016-00318
`Patent 7,772,209
`
`/Dov P. Grossman/
`Dov P. Grossman
`Reg. No. 72,525
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`P: 212-813-8800
`F: 212-355-3333
`
`Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals
`USA, Inc. and Fresenius Kabi USA,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 30, 2016

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