throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SANDOZ INC.,
`APOTEX INC., 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 USA, INC.,
`FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, and WOCKHARDT BIO AG,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-003181
`U.S. Patent 7,772,209
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER SANDOZ INC.’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE DEPOSITION OF
`EXPERT PATRICK J. STOVER, PH.D.
`
`1 Cases IPR2016-01429, IPR2016-01393, and IPR2016-01340 have been joined
`
`with the instant proceeding.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS INCLUDES
`IMPROPER ARGUMENTS AND SHOULD BE EXPUNGED
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board dismiss Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Observations on the Deposition of Petitioner Sandoz’s Expert Dr.
`
`Patrick Stover (“Motion” or “Mot.”) and expunge its supporting exhibits because
`
`the purported observations in the Motion are a masked attempt to submit additional
`
`argumentative sur-reply pages in contravention of the Board’s guidance and prior
`
`decisions. Instead of a short statement of relevance, Patent Owner’s observations
`
`include argument, some of which spans several sentences. E.g., Paper 61, Mot. at
`
`2 and 3. Moreover, many of Patent Owner’s arguments are new; they do not match
`
`the positions taken on the portions of the prior briefing Patent Owner cites. Sandoz
`
`discusses particularly egregious examples in further detail in its responses below.
`
`As the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide makes clear, “[a]n observation
`
`should be a concise statement of the relevance of identified testimony to an
`
`identified argument or portion of an exhibit . . . . [It] is not an opportunity to raise
`
`new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue objections.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,767-68
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). The Board has further noted that “each item included as an
`
`observation on cross-examination should be precise, preferably no more than one
`
`short sentence in the explanation of relevance. Observations on cross-examination
`
`are not meant to serve the purpose of an argumentative surreply.” Atrium Med.
`
`Corp. v. Davol Inc., IPR2013-00189, Paper 48 at 2 (February 28, 2014).
`
`1
`
`

`

`“The Board may refuse entry of excessively long or argumentative
`
`observations (or responses),” such as the observations contained in Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,755, 48,767-68 (Aug. 14, 2012). In fact, the Board
`
`has previously considered proposed observations similar to the Patent Owner’s
`
`submissions and dismissed them as containing improper argument. In Medtronic,
`
`Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., the Board reviewed proposed observations that “cite[d]
`
`several pages of [the witness’s] testimony, as opposed to one portion” and
`
`“proceed[ed] to present an argument that the testimony is relevant . . . .” IPR2013-
`
`00506, Paper 37 at 3-4 (October 15, 2014). The Board found the statements
`
`improper, dismissed the Motion, and expunged the relevant exhibits. Id.; see also
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. ATI Techs. ULC, IPR2015-00325, Paper 52 at 2-5 (January 25,
`
`2016). While Petitioner maintains that the Board should dismiss the Motion
`
`without considering Patent Owner’s proposed observations due to their inclusion
`
`of argument, Petitioner has responded to the proposed observations below.
`
`II.
`
`SANDOZ’S RESPONSES TO PATENT OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS
`Response to Observation 1
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observations introduce new arguments that are improper
`
`because they misconstrue the relevance of Dr. Stover’s testimony, which is
`
`inconsistent with Lilly’s own reliance upon the opinions of Dr. Zeisel and Lilly’s
`
`definition of a POSA. Dr. Stover is not a POSA (i.e., an oncologist), and does not
`
`2
`
`

`

`purport to be one. His testimony is responsive to Dr. Zeisel who, like Dr. Stover,
`
`is not an oncologist. Dr. Stover made clear that his opinions come from the
`
`perspective of a nutritional scientist about knowledge available to a POSA in June
`
`1999, which is consistent with Lilly’s definition that “[t]he POSA also would have
`
`an understanding of how nutritional issues relate to the use of chemotherapy
`
`agents . . . .” Paper 36 at 14. Dr. Stover testified:
`
`A. I can tell you what information was available to that person at that
`time, but I can't tell you what any one individual would or would not have
`known. I can tell you what the state of knowledge was in terms of both
`biochemistry and nutrition at that time.
`Q. Right.
`A. And, but in particular you can speak to the state of knowledge in
`biochemistry and nutrition but not to the state of oncology; is that fair?
`A. I can tell you -- I don't think that's completely fair, no. I think that
`I can tell you what information would be available to an oncologist at that
`time.
`
`*
`*
`*
`Q. Okay. And, but my question is: Have you -- have you made any
`effort in your mind to separate out, you know, what you know and what
`people with your type of expertise would have known from the standpoint of
`an expert in one-carbon metabolism and biochemistry from what the person
`of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this case would have known?
`A. I don't see those as distinct, because I can tell you that many of the
`leading antifolate oncologists attend the same meetings I do. We speak in the
`
`3
`
`

`

`same sessions. The focus of the talks is different, but there is a free sharing
`of information among those groups.
`
`Ex. 2137, 25:2-26:22.
`
`
`
`Dr. Stover further explained the relevance of nutritional science to
`
`oncologists and how nutritional scientists and oncologists work together both in a
`
`research and clinical setting. He explained that “nutrition is an important part of
`
`cancer treatment” (Ex. 2137 at 23:24-24:14), that he is in involved in “scientific
`
`meetings, which are held annually, [where] we have a blend of people in nutrition,
`
`people who are biochemists and clinicians” who “intermingl[e]” knowledge (id.
`
`22:7-14), and that in a hospital setting, “a full clinical team that would include an
`
`oncologist” would also “include someone understanding nutrition, if not the
`
`oncologist him or herself” (id. at 108:7-109:25).
`
`Dr. Stover also testified that he is qualified to opine on the topics related to
`
`folate metabolism that are the subject of Dr. Zeisel’s testimony in this proceeding:
`
`Q. And your declaration here today was done in response to
`Dr. Zeisel; correct?
`A. That's correct.
`Q. Is he an oncologist?
`A. Dr. Zeisel is not an oncologist.
`*
`*
`*
`Q. Do you know Dr. Zeisel?
`A. I know Dr. Zeisel well.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Q. Are you familiar with his background?
`A. I am very familiar with his background.
`
`Exhibit 2137 at 220:25-221:19 (objections omitted).
`
`Dr. Stover further testified:
`
`Q. Let me ask you this way: Would you say that you are at
`least as qualified as Dr. Zeisel to opine on the nutritional issues in this
`case?
`
`*
`*
`*
`A. I would say that, in my opinion, I'm abundantly more
`qualified than Dr. Zeisel to speak to folate metabolism. Dr. Zeisel
`does not have a research program that is focused on folate metabolism
`or DNA synthesis. His focus is on methylation, on choline and on
`liver disease, essentially.
`*
`*
`*
`A. I don't -- I am not aware of any work that Dr. Zeisel has
`done in the oncology field.
`
`Id. at 222:19-223:20 (objections omitted).
`
`Response to Observation 2
`Patent Owner’s observation misleadingly omits adjacent testimony
`
`
`
`demonstrating Dr. Stover’s knowledge of the mechanisms behind pemetrexed’s
`
`toxicities. Just prior to the testimony excerpted by Patent Owner, Dr. Stover
`
`explained:
`
`Q. And how does pemetrexed cause toxicities?
`
`5
`
`

`

`A. Pemetrexed is a multitargeted antifolate. So not only does it
`inhibit its primary target, or at least its highest affinity target, TYMS,
`but it targets other enzymes as well, as I indicated.
`Toxicities, depending on the nature of the toxicity, could
`originate from any off-target effect. Calling -- if we are referring to
`the target effect as the inhibition of TS.
`Ex. 2137, 15:10-20 (objection omitted).
`
`Immediately after the testimony excerpted by Lilly, Dr. Stover further
`explained:
`
`Q. Is the same true of other particular hematological toxicities?
`*
`*
`*
`A. Which would you be referring to, to a megaloblastic anemia
`or -- which -- which --
`Q. Any other hematologic toxicity.
`A. Rapidly dividing cells require DNA synthesis. So if you
`impair DNA synthesis, you will have -- you are more likely to have
`both chromosomal abnormalities in those cells as well as lower rates
`of cell division proliferation.
`
`Exhibit 2137 at 16:12-23 (objection omitted).
`
`Patent Owner also neglects to cite other testimony from Dr. Stover that
`
`demonstrates his knowledge of the mechanics of pemetrexed’s toxicity and
`
`efficacy. E.g., id. at 30:8-31:14. In particular, Dr. Stover further testified:
`
`Q. Would there be differences, however, in how the
`pemetrexed overall interacted with the cells?
`*
`*
`*
`
`6
`
`

`

`A. Yes. Context is really important.
`So if you look -- as we discussed, and as I stated in my
`declaration, there are fundamental differences in the way that folate
`metabolism functions as a unit in a normal cell as opposed to a cancer
`cell, and there is even differences among cancer cells.
`So one of the differences, for instance, is high rates of folate
`catabolism, for which, again, I have discussed in this declaration. So
`when you look at the interaction of pemetrexed in two different cells,
`and you consider other targets that it hits, including it is an effective
`inhibitor of dihydrofolate reductase, which is known to induce general
`increased rates in folate turnover, or catabolism, that effect is going to
`be very different in a cancer cell as opposed to a normal cell, because
`a cancer cell already has high rates of folate catabolism, and,
`therefore, one would predict that if you give more a substrate, like
`dihydrofolate, to that catabolism -- for that catabolism, that the folate
`deficiency would be felt more within the cancer cell than it would in
`the normal cell.
`Furthermore, if you wanted to attempt to ameliorate the
`deficiency, you -- the expectation is, and, in fact, you can actually see
`this in culture, that you would be able to replete a cell that was
`suffering from folate deficiency because of inhibited dihydrofolate
`reductase much more readily than you would a tumor cell, because of
`its active role in folate catabolism and having that machinery
`operative.
`So when you consider the effect of pemetrexed more broadly in
`different contexts, you would expect that some cells would be more
`
`7
`
`

`

`sensitized, some of the secondary and tertiary effects, than a normal
`cell would be.
`
`Id. at 205:17-207:9 (objection omitted). Lastly, Lilly’s argument that Dr. Stover
`
`lacks understanding of toxicities and that this undermines his opinions is an
`
`improper argument for an observation as noted above.
`
`Response to Observation 3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation misleadingly omits the preceding testimony
`
`setting the framework for the testimony Patent Owner cites in its observation. Dr.
`
`Stover’s testimony was in response to a question regarding hypothetical normal
`
`cells that have not been supplemented with folic acid or vitamin B12:
`
`Q. And, similarly, pemetrexed may have an effect on rapidly
`dividing healthy cells through the inhibition of one or both of those
`enzymes?
`A. So you worry about toxicities in normal cells, absolutely.
`
`Exhibit 2137 at 20:5-9.
`
`Response to Observation 4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s observation omits Dr. Stover’s explanation of the relevance
`
`of his testimony regarding nutritional knowledge in June 1999 to the knowledge of
`
`a POSA, which is summarized above in Sandoz’s response to Observation 1.
`
`Response to Observation 5
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner cites to various incomplete portions of testimony, ignoring
`
`relevant portions of Dr. Stover’s testimony regarding conversations with Dr. David
`
`Goldman. The omitted testimony demonstrates that the conversations with Dr.
`
`Goldman are not relevant because they occurred well after June 1999.
`
`Q. Towards the end of your deposition there was a discussion
`of Dr. Goldman and some views that he had expressed. During -- I
`think they were concerns that he had expressed.
`A. Uh-hum.
`Q. During what time period did he express those concerns that
`were referenced during your -- your cross with Mr. Krinsky?
`A. Those concerns were expressed to me in Greece in the
`folate summer conference, both at a microphone following a
`presentation that was given, and then subsequently we talked about
`this over dinner at the Greece folate meeting, which I believe was
`2012, but I could verify that. It was either -- it was somewhere in the
`time period of 2012 to 2013 or '14.
`Q. So well after June 1999?
`A. Well after June 1999.
`
`Exhibit 2137 at 217:21-218:14.
`
`In addition, Patent Owner omitted testimony from Dr. Stover that these
`
`discussions with Dr. Goldman did not reflect the prevailing view of the effect of
`
`folate on cancer prior to June 1999:
`
`Q. -- there was a school of thought among some oncologists
`anyway --
`
`9
`
`

`

`A. Yes.
`Q. -- that the levels of folate supplementation, even as low as I
`think you said 200 to 250 micrograms per day --
`A. Yeah.
`Q. -- could adversely impact either anticancer chemotherapy or
`could encourage cancer growth?
`*
`*
`*
`Q. I'm not saying you agree with that school of thought, but
`that was the school of thought that was out there?
`A. That was a school of thought that was out there. But again,
`this underwent extensive review by the Center of Disease Control
`prior to implementing -- or part of the federal government through the
`FDA implementing fortification through their labeling authority, that
`anything entitled enriched had folic acid added to it at these levels,
`and was also, again, subject to review in the 1998 dietary reference
`intakes where they looked at harm related to potential elevated levels
`of folic acid, and you won't find any evidence of that in there. This
`was something that was raised as a hypothesis, something that needed
`to be investigated, but something for which there were no data and for
`which there were counteractive – there were other data showing that if
`there was deficiency, you're actually creating risk, right. So there was
`-- it was a matter of academic debate, just as there were always issues
`of academic debate.
`
`Id. at 195:9-196:20 (objection omitted).
`
`Dr. Stover further testified:
`
`10
`
`

`

`Q. We have talked about the FDA decision to fortify the diet
`with folic acid a few minutes ago. One follow-up questions on that.
`Are you aware of whether the FDA decision to ratify the
`fortification of the diet with folic acid, in making that decision
`whether they expressed any concern regarding the impact on
`antifolate administration to patients?
`A. That was a topic that was raised and that, my understanding,
`was considered. It was certainly debated and certainly was debated
`within discussions -- I actually went to the CDC to discuss these
`issues and there was not deemed to be evidence in support of a
`hypothesis that fortification would affect the efficacy of any antifolate
`chemotherapeutics.
`
`Id. at 223:21-224:12.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Laura L. Lydigsen
`Bryan T. Richardson, Ph.D. (Reg. No.
`70,572)
`Joshua H. James (Reg. No. 72,568)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`11
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing document were
`served on February 21, 2017, via email to the following individuals at the email
`addresses below.
`
`Dov P. Grossman (Reg. No. 72,525)
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5812
`Facsimile: 202-434-5029
`dgrossman@wc.com
`
`David M. Krinsky (Reg. No. 72,339)
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5338
`Facsimile: 202-480-8302
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`
`Adam L. Perlman
`Williams & Connolly LLP
`725 Twelfth St. NW
`Washington DC 20005
`Direct Phone: 202-434-5244
`aperlman@wc.com
`
`James P. Leeds (Reg. No. 35,241)
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Lilly Corporate Center
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`Direct Phone: 317-276-1667
`Facsimile: 317-277-6534
`leeds_james@lilly.com
`
`John C. Demeter (Reg. No. 30,167)
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Lilly Corporate Center
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ralph J. Gabric
`Ralph J. Gabric (Reg. No. 34,167)
`Laura L. Lydigsen
`Bryan T. Richardson, Ph.D. (Reg. No.
`70,572)
`Joshua H. James (Reg. No. 72,568)
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`NBC Tower – Suite 3600
`455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`
`Indianapolis, IN 46285
`Direct Phone: 317-276-3785
`Facsimile: 317-276-3861
`Email: demeter_john_c@lilly.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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