`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: July 27, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________________
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC. and AKORN INC.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (US 8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (US 8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (US 8,642,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (US 8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (US 8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (US 9,248,191 B2)
`_____________________________
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`OBSERVATIONS ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY OF
`MR. IVAN T. HOFMANN
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00576 and IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-
`00596, IPR2017-00579 and IPR2017-00598, IPR2017-00583 and IPR2017-00599,
`IPR2017-00585 and IPR2017-00600, and IPR2017-00586 and IPR2017-00601,
`have respectively been joined with the captioned proceedings. The word-for-word
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the caption pursuant to the
`Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 10).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner submits this Response to Patent Owner Allergan’s Motion for
`
`Observations on the Cross-Examination Testimony of Ivan T. Hofmann
`
`(“Observations”) pursuant to the Standing Order (Paper 9) and the Scheduling
`
`Order (Paper 10).
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Testimony That Restasis® Sales Do Not Prove Commercial
`Success of the Claimed Invention
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 1. Mr. Hofmann testified that the commercial performance of
`
`Restasis does not provide objective indicia of nonobviousness in this case. EX2084
`
`at 7:24-8:3. While the lack of nexus between the novel aspects of the alleged
`
`inventions and the commercial success is one reason for this belief, it is one among
`
`several. EX2084 at 7:24–8:12. (“Well, I mean, I defer to the entirety of my
`
`declaration. I think there are many reasons I [don’t believe commercial
`
`performance of Restasis® provides objective indicia of nonobviousness of the
`
`claims], including, you know, the blocking patents, and I’m sure we’ll get into
`
`everything, but among them is the lack of nexus.”). Importantly, Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`declaration and deposition testimony make clear his opinion that the blocking
`
`patents prevent the performance of Restasis from providing objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness of the claims-at-issue. Id. at 82:13–19. (“We’re talking about the
`
`patents at issue, which have a very specific claimed range that do cyclosporine,
`
`that do use a specific formulation. Those are blocked by the ’979 and ’342 patent.
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`So we can’t learn anything about those patents at issue with the performance of
`
`Restasis.”); EX1041 ¶¶30, 33–38. Allergan omits this opinion in its observations.
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Critique of Dr. Maness for Failing to Define a Relevant
`Market
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 1–2. While Mr. Hofmann has not done a “definitive definition of
`
`what products would comprise the relevant market,” he has identified a number of
`
`different products that treat dry eye and would be competitors to Restasis. EX2084
`
`at 18:6–17. Mr. Hofmann has not completed the definitive definition because
`
`Allergan did not produce a complete data set to analyze. Id. at 18:21–22. Mr.
`
`Hofmann testified that he rightly criticized Dr. Maness because “He’s asserting
`
`commercial success. I’m saying he hasn’t done so properly with respect to defining
`
`the relevant market. I don’t have a data set to do an alternative calculation, but that
`
`doesn’t mean just because he did it for the wrong market, that that should stand.”
`
`Id. at 20:9–14.
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Discussion of Product Marketing and Nexus
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 2. Mr. Hofmann testified that “The point here is not whether the
`
`marketing itself is excessive. It’s the contribution that marketing has made in
`
`combination with all the other points that I’ve made in my declaration. I think that
`
`it has clearly been a marketing intensity at a level that is significant. And that’s just
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`not my words. That’s the words of Allergan, both internally and externally.” Id. at
`
`44:19–45:2.
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Discussion of Marketing as a Percentage of Sales
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 3. In his testimony, Mr. Hofmann carefully qualified Dr.
`
`Maness’s calculations of marketing expenses as a percentage of sales as “a little bit
`
`of an apples and oranges.” Id.at 42:17–43:8 (“I don’t quantitatively have a dispute
`
`with how he’s pulled this together. I do think that this is a different data set than is
`
`typically used for when one’s looking at these ratios based on IMS data because
`
`IMS data uses . . . retail value of samples. This is actual cost of samples.”). He
`
`further cautioned, “So in terms of the math, I don’t disagree with it, but I don’t
`
`know that it truly reflects the economics as a percentage.” Id. at 44:1–8. Moreover,
`
`Mr. Hofmann questions the utility of analyzing marketing as a function of sales:
`
`I’ve looked at the role of marketing and I’ve looked at it considering
`
`this as one metric, and I feel like, as I’ve explained in my report, this
`
`percentage of sales metric masks the true intensity. And when one
`
`looks at it relative to the Allergan documents and the testimony and
`
`the public statements made by Allergan and looks at that in context,
`
`when one looks at that in context with the promotion, rebates,
`
`discounts, other financial incentives, looks at it in combination with
`
`everything else, it definitely supports the opinion that there’s no
`
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. You can’t pick out one metric
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`from one spreadsheet over a 13-year period and say, does this tell us
`
`the answer. You’re looking at it in the context of all the different
`
`information, evidence, and data sets.
`
`Id. at 45:15–46:13.
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Discussion of Marketing Expenditures of Other Products
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 3–4. Mr. Hofmann testified:
`
`I reject the utility of looking at [whether the percentage of marketing
`
`expenses as a function of revenue is within range of products in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry]. As I explain, I think it mutes the marketing
`
`intensity. I complain of some of the general statements that Mr.
`
`Maness makes about how this fits within general averages, but that is
`
`kind of broadly looking at various therapeutic classes. I haven’t seen a
`
`data set that allows me to look at that relative to other products in the
`
`class, and a lot of the products in the class are over-the-counter so I’m
`
`not even sure -- you would have to get comparable data. So no, I don’t
`
`think a useful or meaningful data set exists so I haven’t done it.
`
`Id. at 38:1–39:5. Instead Mr. Hofmann has looked at the totality of other sources to
`
`determine the importance of marketing to Restasis. Id. at 41:11–42:2 (“What I’ve
`
`done is I’ve looked at the absolute data. I’ve looked at all the statements that
`
`Allergan makes in their internal documents, all the statements that Allergan makes
`
`in their external documents, some of the testimony. And together they tell the story
`
`of the absolute importance of the marketing efforts that have been made.”).
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Critique of Dr. Maness for Failing to Apportion
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 4–5. Mr. Hofmann testified:
`
`Well, [my lack of apportionment] goes back to he’s the one asserting
`
`commercial success on all six of these patents using the same sales
`
`and applying it across all these patents and all these claims. I did not
`
`do my own apportionment analysis among the patents at issue. I did
`
`highlight the significant and important role of the ’979 and ’342
`
`patent, which is, I guess, some level of qualitative apportionment . . . .
`
`Id. at 85:24–86:17. Moreover, based on his understanding from the technical
`
`experts regarding claim scope (Id. at 88:18–21), Mr. Hofmann testified, “the
`
`existence of the ’979 and ’342 patent, both from a blocking perspective and from a
`
`prior art perspective, really leave nothing to the patents at issue as showing -- as
`
`driving the sales of Restasis.” Id. at 86:12–17; EX1041 at ¶¶29–30 (“Therefore,
`
`Examiner cannot ascertain whether the commercial success of the claimed
`
`composition was due to the claimed features which are distinct from those
`
`embodiments in Ding et al. or other factors such as the fact that the composition
`
`was the only composition for treating dry eyes FDA approved and thus,
`
`commercially available for sale to the public.”).
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s Reliance on Experts to Interpret Scope of Patent Claims
`
`
`
`Allergan omits relevant testimony and mischaracterizes the cited testimony.
`
`Observations at 5. Mr. Hofmann testified that while he may not have cited to a
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`technical expert within a specific footnote, he is still “relying on those experts
`
`broadly” and he has “included citations to the underlying documents that they’ve
`
`cited.” EX2084 at 69:3–11. He further testified, “Sometimes when I say I
`
`understand, I’m referring also to understandings on technical issues. It doesn’t look
`
`like I have a reference there, but I know I have many references on the same
`
`substantive issue throughout the declaration.” Id. at 67:8–12.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Steven W. Parmelee /
` Steven W. Parmelee, Lead Counsel
` Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of the
`
`foregoing Petitioners’ Response to Patent Owner’s Motion for Observations on the
`
`Cross-Examination of Testimony Mr. Ivan T. Hofmann on this 27th day of July,
`
`2017, on the Patent Owner at the correspondence address of the Patent Owner as
`
`follows:
`
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Michael Kane
`Susan Morrison Colletti
`Robert M. Oakes
`Jonathan Singer
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP1@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP2@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP3@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP4@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP5@fr.com
`Email: IPR13351-0008IP6@fr.com
`Email: PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`And on the remaining petitioners as follows:
`
`
`Gary Speier
`Mark Schuman
`CARLSON, CASPERS, VANDENBURGH,
`LINDQUIST & SCHUMAN, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email: gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`Email: mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Dzwonczyk
`Azadeh Kokabi
`Travis Ribar
`SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Email: mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`Email: akokabi@sughrue.com
`Email: tribar@sughrue.com
`Attorneys for Akorn Inc.
`
`Dated: July 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Steven W. Parmelee /
` Steven W. Parmelee, Lead Counsel
` Reg. No. 31,990
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`