`
`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’ OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners file this Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude the
`
`testimony of Mylan’s declarants, Drs. Calman (EX1039) and Bloch (EX1040),
`
`under F.R.E. 402, 403, and 702 and Mr. Hofmann (EX1041) under F.R.E. 402, 403
`
`(Paper 43) in accordance with the Board’s Scheduling Order (Paper 10). Patent
`
`Owner must establish entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Allergan’s Motion Fails to Satisfy Board Rules.
`
`Allergan failed to satisfy Board rules for motions to exclude. 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48756, 48767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Allergan did not comply with requirements (a) and
`
`(b) because it (1) failed to list which specific paragraphs of the declarations should
`
`be excluded, and under which bases; (2) did not identify specifically where it
`
`objected to each paragraph, citing Paper 40 only generally (Mot’n at 2); and (3)
`
`failed to identify where specific declaration paragraphs were relied upon by
`
`Petitioners, instead asserting only generally that “Mylan’s Reply relies upon the
`
`Calman and Bloch declarations (EXs. 1039 and 1040) in its reply[sic].” Mot’n at 3.
`
`Allergan’s motion also violates 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 because its objections
`
`(Paper 40) only discuss a subset of the declaration paragraphs. Paper 40 (objecting
`
`to EX1039, ¶¶67-71, EX1040, ¶¶10, 26, 33, 35-38, 65-68). Allergan’s motion fails
`
`to provide a listing of paragraphs specifically for exclusion, but discusses several
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration paragraphs that are not identified in Allergan’s objections. Paper 43
`
`(discussing ¶¶45-47, 56, 60-61, 65-66 of EX1039, ¶¶28-32, 34, 39-64 of EX1040,
`
`which were not identified in Paper 40). Allergan’s attempt to exclude paragraphs
`
`of the declarations that Allergan failed to specifically identify in its Objections
`
`(Paper 40) violates both the Trial Practice Guide and 37 C.F.R. § 42.64. Allergan’s
`
`motion should thus be denied.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners’ Reply Declarations Were Appropriately Submitted.
`
`Allergan contends that Mr. Hofmann’s analysis of Allergan’s asserted
`
`commercial success case “properly belonged in Mylan’s original petition as part of
`
`Mylan’s prima facie case,” and that this alleged renders “the [Hofmann]
`
`declaration inadmissible under F.R.E. 402 and 403.” Mot’n at 1-2. With respect to
`
`the Calman and Bloch declarations, Allergan does not argue that their testimony
`
`should have been part of the prima facie case, but merely that Dr. Bloch’s
`
`statistical analysis of Sall Figure 2 and Dr. Calman’s clinical materiality analysis of
`
`Sall Figure 2 are impermissible, new arguments such that Allergan was allegedly
`
`“deprived…of the opportunity to respond meaningfully” to them. Id. at 1.
`
`Allergan’s arguments mischaracterize the law and the facts.
`
`1. Allergan Had Adequate Notice of Petitioners’ Statistical Significance,
`Clinical Materiality, and Commercial Success Arguments.
`
`The Petitions and Amiji declarations provided Allergan with notice of
`
`Petitioners’ argument that Allergan’s evidence of alleged unexpected results failed
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`to demonstrate both statistical significance and clinical materiality. See, e.g.,
`
`IPR2016-01127, Paper 3 (“Pet.”) at 2 (“The data relied upon by applicants lack
`
`scientific parameters necessary to demonstrate statistical significance and
`
`materiality and…appear to be…previously published graphs from… Sall.”).
`
` They also provided Allergan with notice of Petitioners’ argument that
`
`neither Sall nor the exhibits that Dr. Schiffman apparently adapted from Sall (by
`
`removing the error bars) established superiority of the 0.05% CsA emulsion over
`
`the prior art. Pet. at 5 (“As noted by Dr. Amiji, the data presented by applicants
`
`lacked scientific parameters necessary to demonstrate statistical significance and
`
`materiality.”); id. at 39 (Sall taught that either CsA concentration is
`
`“therapeutically effective” in increasing tear production and noted that there was
`
`“‘no dose-response effect’ between the two percentages of CsA”); id. at 47-57 (No
`
`Unexpected Results); id. at 50-51 (“Sall had previously reported that the decrease
`
`in corneal staining and the increase in Schirmer score were comparable between
`
`the 0.05% CsA and 0.10% CsA emulsions….At best, Schiffman Exhibit D merely
`
`confirms the teachings of the prior art that the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA emulsions
`
`had similar results.”); id. at 55 (“Stevenson and Sall…both reported that variations
`
`between emulsions containing 0.05% and 0.10% CsA were not significant.”); id.
`
`at 56 (“However, using ratios instead of raw numbers can exaggerate the
`
`importance of very small and immaterial differences.”).
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`The Petitions and Amiji declarations also provided Allergan with notice of
`
`Petitioners’ argument that small changes in corneal staining or categorized
`
`Schirmer scores are clinically immaterial. Pet. at 52-54 (“[C]hange in Schirmer
`
`score of 2 units for the 0.10% CsA group in Fig. 2 of Schiffman Exhibit B is not
`
`even statistically significantly different from 0 (baseline)…. [E]ven if statistically
`
`significant, the differences in Phase 2 results between the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA
`
`emulsions cited by Dr. Schiffman appear to be immaterial. Despite what appears to
`
`be a large gap between the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA emulsions….”).
`
`They also provided Allergan with notice of Petitioners’ argument that PK
`
`studies must determine there is “any significant or material difference between the
`
`tested emulsions,” including whether “materiality of any observed differences” had
`
`been established in light of the fact that “the minimal concentration of CsA needed
`
`in ocular tissues for therapeutic effectiveness was already known.” Pet. at 54.
`
`They also provided Allergan with notice of Petitioner’s arguments that
`
`“Allergan failed to establish a nexus between sales [of Restasis®] and the claims,”
`
`that the “sales were not attributable to using the 0.05% CsA emulsion,” that the
`
`Ding ’979 patent “blocked the entry of both the claimed emulsion and comparable
`
`emulsions until 2014,” that Allergan’s “decade-long marketing efforts” and
`
`“narrow definition of the relevant market” undermined any nexus between the
`
`sales and the claims, and that Sall teaches that the 0.10% CsA emulsion was “as
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`substantially therapeutically effective” as the claimed emulsion. Pet. at 58-59.
`
`Because Allergan was on notice of each of these arguments at the time it
`
`filed its Responses, Allergan’s APA and Due Process arguments fail. In re
`
`NuVasive, Inc., 841 F.3d 966, 970-75 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`2. Exhibits 1039-1041 Are Properly Responsive To Allergan’s PORs.
`
`Allergan asserts that “Mylan has changed its theory of unpatentability at the
`
`reply stage” and in effect, “filed a new Petition.” Mot’n at 5. Allergan contends
`
`that the Reply declarations “are entirely different from, and in certain cases even
`
`contradict, the statements made in its original petition.” Id. at 3. Allergan also
`
`contends that lack of commercial success must be established as part of a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness. Id. at 1. These arguments mischaracterize the Petitions,
`
`Petitioners’ Replies, and Reply declarations, and the facts of these proceedings.
`
`Allergan contends that Petitioners’ Replies and Reply declarations introduce
`
`a new and contradictory argument by “criticiz[ing] the tear production data shown
`
`in Sall rather than embracing it.” Id. at 3. But Mylan has not changed its position
`
`with respect to Sall Figure 2; nor has it criticized Sall Figure 2 per se. Instead,
`
`Petitioners’ arguments undermine and criticize Allergan’s mischaracterization of
`
`the Sall reference and Sall Figure 2. As discussed above in Section II.B.1, Mylan
`
`argued in the Petitions themselves that Sall established therapeutic efficacy of both
`
`CsA formulations with no significant or material difference between the two. See,
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`e.g., Pet. at 39-41. This remains Petitioners’ position today.
`
`Allergan claims “[t]his is the first time Mylan has presented arguments or
`
`evidence based upon an alleged statistical analysis.” Id. at 3-4. As discussed in
`
`Section II.B.1, the Petitions argued that Dr. Schiffman created the false impression
`
`that there was a significant or material difference between the two CsA
`
`formulations when no such difference existed. Pet. at 47-51. The Petitions argued
`
`Sall undermined any assertion by Allergan that Sall’s figures, which were copied
`
`into the Schiffman declaration absent their error bars, supported any conclusion of
`
`superiority of the 0.05% CsA emulsion over the 0.10% CsA emulsion. Id.
`
`At that time, the prosecution record indicated that Allergan relied upon the
`
`altered exhibits in the Schiffman declaration for its purported unexpected results.
`
`Id. When it submitted its Patent Owner Responses, Allergan specifically adopted
`
`Sall Figure 2 in support of its unexpected results argument. See, e.g., IPR2016-
`
`01127, Paper 16 (“POR”) at 4; EX2024, ¶¶40-42; EX2025, ¶¶33-35. Although its
`
`unexpected results and criticality arguments now focus on Sall Figure 2, Allergan
`
`and its experts also purported to rely (in footnotes) on Dr. Schiffman’s faulty
`
`analysis of clinical trial data from prosecution. See, e.g., POR at 21; EX2024, ¶48;
`
`EX2025, ¶47. When Allergan refused to provide the data underlying this analysis
`
`and retracted its reliance on it, the Board issued an order finding that Schiffman
`
`Exhibits B, D, E, F and Attar Exhibits C-D are entitled to no weight. Paper 33 at 3.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`In Reply, Petitioners evaluated Allergan’s claim that Sall Figure 2
`
`demonstrated a significant, material, or “critical” difference between the two CsA
`
`formulations. Consistent with the Petitions, Petitioners asked Drs. Bloch and
`
`Calman to evaluate whether the “differences” in Sall Figure 2 were statistically
`
`significant and clinically material. This was directly responsive to the arguments
`
`Allergan raised in its Responses. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (Reply may respond to
`
`arguments raised in the corresponding patent owner response).
`
`Neither Dell nor NuVasive require that Allergan be permitted to submit Sur-
`
`reply evidence in this situation where Petitioners have merely identified the
`
`inadequacy of Allergan’s alleged objective evidence of non-obviousness. Indeed,
`
`the Court in Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, found that it is entirely appropriate for a
`
`Petitioner to submit new declarations with its Reply. 805 F.3d 1064, 1081 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). Belden established that there is no entitlement to Sur-rebuttal evidence
`
`where Petitioners’ evidence “fairly responds only to arguments made in [Patent
`
`Owner’s witness’s] declaration and [Patent Owner’s] response.” Id. at 1078 (no
`
`APA violation where “[e]ach of the points that [Reply declarant] made in his
`
`declaration responds to a statement made in [Patent Owner Response]
`
`declaration.”). Such is the case here.
`
`The Court’s conclusion in Belden that there is no denial of procedural rights
`
`when Reply evidence “was legitimately responsive to [Patent Owner’s] arguments
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`and not needed for a prima facie case of obviousness” was true even though the
`
`Reply declaration addressed Patent Owner’s attacks on Petitioner’s prima facie
`
`case. Id. at 1078-80. The Court noted that the Reply testimony was not necessary
`
`to establish a prima facie case because the prior art and the Petition “sufficed to
`
`supply a prima facie case of obviousness—as confirmed by the Institution
`
`Decision.” Id. So too, here, the Institution Decisions confirm that the Petitioners
`
`established that Ding ’979 (EX1006) anticipates the formulation claims and that
`
`Ding ’979 and Sall (EX1007) render each of the claims prima facie obvious even
`
`without the benefit of the Reply declarations.
`
`Allergan asserts that there “is no reason why Mylan could not have included
`
`[the Calman and Bloch] declarations, and the underlying theories, in its original
`
`Petition.” Mot’n at 5. However, the Court in Belden noted that imposing a stand-
`
`alone requirement that Reply evidence could not “have been presented in a prior
`
`filing,” if “read literally, might cover most responsive evidence[.]” Belden at 1078
`
`n.4. The Court confirmed that it was not error for the Board to cite the Reply
`
`declaration in its Final Written Decision, both to explain why it was rejecting
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments, but also “to find the motivation required for a prima
`
`facie case.” Id. at 1079. Petitioners’ Replies in these proceedings are even more
`
`appropriate than those in Belden because the Board need not rely exclusively on
`
`the Reply declarations for an essential part of its decision.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`As discussed in Section II.B.1, each of Petitioner’s arguments were first
`
`advanced in the Petition, and the Reply declarations merely confirm what the prior
`
`art has said from the beginning: there is no significant or material superiority
`
`established for the 0.05% CsA formulation over the prior art. The Board need not
`
`solely rely on the analyses of Drs. Calman and Bloch as an essential basis for the
`
`decision as these analyses merely confirm what the prior art references indicate.
`
`Contrary to Allergan’s unsupported assertions, there is no rule of law
`
`requiring a prima facie case of obviousness to rule out potential claims for
`
`unexpected results or requiring a Petitioner to present all rebuttals to a commercial
`
`success case in its Petition. Allergan’s Sheppard (EX2024), Loftsson (EX2025),
`
`and Maness (EX2028) declarations each run dozens of pages and include
`
`information that was not part of the prosecution record. Allergan’s argument that it
`
`was entitled to expand upon its secondary consideration case but that Petitioners
`
`were bound to anticipate what that case would be defies reason.
`
`3. Allergan Was Not Prohibited From Submitting Sur-reply Evidence.
`
`Allergan concedes it received authorization from the Board to file a Sur-
`
`reply to address the purported “new arguments,” and Allergan filed a 15-page Sur-
`
`reply ostensibly to address them. Paper 42. Yet Allergan contends the Board
`
`violated its APA rights because Allergan did not “submit rebuttal evidence” from a
`
`biostatistician or an ophthalmologist. Mot’n at 2, 4. Allergan asserts it was “unable
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`to submit declarations” to rebut Mylan’s “new theories.” Id. at 5.
`
`As noted in Belden, however, “surrebuttal may be allowed” only where
`
`“new enough matter is allowed” in the Reply, but even then “a proffer of specifics
`
`may be required to justify the additional round of evidentiary submissions.” Belden
`
`at 1082. Here, no Sur-rebuttal was justified because Petitioners’ Replies were
`
`entirely responsive to Allergan’s responses and were consistent with the arguments
`
`in the Petitions. Furthermore, Allergan did not request authorization to present
`
`“responsive declaration evidence” when it requested authorization to file its Sur-
`
`reply. This failure alone is fatal to Allergan’s argument. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-
`
`Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1082(Fed. Cir. 2016). (APA Due Process claim fails
`
`where party did not request additional relief from Board).
`
`Allergan also failed to request authorization to submit Sur-reply evidence or
`
`a proffer of specific information it desired to submit. Allergan nonetheless
`
`submitted five new exhibits. Allergan’s argument that the Board denied a justified
`
`and good faith proffer of specific declaration testimony is simply incorrect.
`
`Moreover, Allergan’s own experts have already confirmed Dr. Bloch’s and
`
`Dr. Calman’s analyses. For example, Dr. Sheppard confirmed Dr. Calman’s
`
`testimony that an increase in Schirmer values of up to 3 mm is clinically
`
`immaterial. EX1037, 169:10-25. Drs. Sheppard and Loftsson also confirmed that
`
`they never even attempted to analyze statistical significance between the 0.05%
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`and 0.10% CsA formulations in Sall Figure 2. EX1037, 174:8-175:21; EX1036,
`
`214:16-216:3. Thus, Allergan’s complaint that its experts would have reached
`
`different conclusions in this regard if they had only been permitted to evaluate the
`
`evidence rings hollow.
`
`III. Allergan Has Failed to Establish That Dr. Calman’s or Dr. Bloch’s
`Testimony Is Unreliable and Inadmissible Under F.R.E. 702.
`
`Allergan contends that the testimony of Drs. Calman and Bloch must be
`
`excluded because they analyzed Sall Figure 2 instead of the data underlying Sall
`
`Figure 2, and thus failed to base their opinions “on sufficient facts or data.” Mot’n
`
`at 6-7. However, Allergan withheld the underlying data. Paper 33 at 2-3 . Drs.
`
`Bloch and Calman were therefore unable to base their opinions on the underlying
`
`data because Allergan chose to base its unexpected results case exclusively on Sall
`
`Figure 2. Allergan fails to cite a single case excluding a statistical analysis or
`
`clinical interpretation of data simply because it was based on the graphs that were
`
`relied upon by the movant to support its secondary considerations case. Allergan
`
`should not be permitted to profit from its own selective presentation of data.
`
`A. Dr. Calman’s Methodology is Not Scientifically Unsound.
`
`Allergan asserts that Dr. Calman’s “methodology” for evaluating the clinical
`
`context of average categorized score increases in Schirmer Tear Tests of less than
`
`0.4 is “scientifically unsound” because a “categorized Schirmer value of 3 relates
`
`to all patients with raw values of ranging from 7 to 10 mm.” Mot’n at 4, 8. But
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`Allergan concedes that Dr. Calman did not purport to provide “‘literal conversions’
`
`[of the categorized scores] to actual raw Schirmer scores.” Id. at 8; EX2082, 103:1-
`
`105:19. (“I’m just trying to get an idea of the magnitude of the change in the
`
`population.”); id. at 163:4-164:21 (changes reported in Sall Figure 2 “were small”
`
`from a clinical perspective, and “None of those [differences] are, in my experience,
`
`material.”); id. at 99:3-10 (“I don’t care if it’s 4 millimeters to 4.5 or 5 millimeters
`
`to 5.5. We’re still talking about small changes.”); id. at 106:16–21 (“It’s hard to
`
`see how it would even be 3 millimeters.”). Dr. Calman explained that Sall
`
`expressly states that the categories were adopted exactly because changes of 3 mm
`
`or less were attributable to within-patient variability, and therefore were not
`
`meaningful. EX1039, ¶70 ; EX1007 at 633. Dr. Sheppard agreed that a change of
`
`this small magnitude was essentially meaningless. EX1037, 169:10-25.
`
`Allergan faults Dr. Calman for relying on Dr. Bloch’s statistical analysis, but
`
`Dr. Calman himself noted that any apparent differences between the two CsA
`
`formulations in Sall Figure 2 were not statistically significant and may therefore be
`
`the result of chance variation. EX2082, 57:15–58:6 (“[N]one of these emulsions
`
`achieve a significant change compared to baseline at Month 3. But there was a
`
`statistically significant difference between .05 and vehicle but not between .05 and
`
`.1.”). Dr. Calman’s testimony confirms Dr. Bloch’s analysis.
`
`B. Dr. Bloch’s Methodology Is Not Scientifically Unsound.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`Allergan asserts that Dr. Bloch’s methodology is scientifically unsound
`
`because he measured Sall Figures 1-2 more precisely than the printed scale. Mot’n
`
`at 4, 9. But Dr. Bloch testified that his measurements were “very good
`
`approximations,” EX2083, 79:13, which he was able to obtain from Sall Figure 2
`
`using a ruler with demarcations in “fractions of millimeters.” Id. at 42:22–23; see
`
`also id. at 43:15–19 (Dr. Bloch made “very accurate measurement[s]”). Moreover,
`
`Dr. Bloch has used this method before in peer reviewed publications (id. at 52:21–
`
`54:13), and he performed the measurements “many times to verify. [He] replicated
`
`it like a good scientist would do.” Id. at 44:2–3. Allergan’s characterization of the
`
`values in Sall Figure 2 as “unsubstantiated” (Mot’n at 9-10) undermines its entire
`
`unexpected results and criticality case.
`
`Allergan asserts that Dr. Bloch’s measurements are unreliable if measuring
`
`the Sall Figure 2 results in “different” p-values than those “reported in Sall.” Id. at
`
`10. However, Dr. Bloch testified that minor variation is to be expected because
`
`Allergan withheld the underlying data. EX2083, 88:23–24. Dr. Bloch confirmed
`
`that the p-values Allergan’s counsel calculated using his measurements were very
`
`similar to those reported in Sall and that he was confident in the accuracy of his
`
`measurements. Id. at 91:4–20 (“I knew my measurements were accurate. I knew
`
`that. The difference in the ratio to get a 0.004 P value versus 0.009 is minuscule.”).
`
`Dr. Bloch testified that calculating p-values using his measurements resulted
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`in lower values than those reported in Sall, meaning that any variation between his
`
`measurements of the graphs and the underlying data Allergan used to make the
`
`graphs favored Allergan’s case. Id. at 89:6–90:4 (“My own measurements would
`
`have given them a smaller P value.”); EX1007 at 635 (“CsA 0.05% group
`
`significantly greater than the vehicle group (P = 0.009).”); EX2080 (calculated p-
`
`value = ~0.004); EX2083, 85:12–88:14 (discussing EX2080, EX2081).
`
`Dr. Bloch confirmed that there were no statistically significant differences
`
`between the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA formulations in Sall Figure 2. EX2083, 81:16–
`
`85:11 (p-value of 0.246 for Sall Figure 2 was not statistically significant: “[I]t’s
`
`very likely it’s just a chance finding. The answer [p-value] is 0.246. It’s very, very
`
`far away from being statistically significant.”); id. at 106:8–10 (“However, if it’s
`
`not statistically significant, what you don’t know is if in fact the result you see is
`
`real, if it’s reproducible.”); id. at 107:4– 9 (“[I]f you don’t have statistical
`
`significance, you just don’t know whether or not the result is real. It could just be a
`
`chance finding. That’s not okay for scientists. They want to know if it’s okay, if
`
`it’s really real.”); EX1040, ¶35 (p-values of 0.898, 0.914, 0.480, and 0.665 when
`
`evaluating the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA formulations for corneal staining in Sall Fig.
`
`1); id. at ¶43 (p-value = 0.115 for Sall Figure 2 at month 3 and 0.251 at month 6).
`
`Allergan’s attempt to exclude Dr. Bloch’s measurements of the Sall Figure 2 graph
`
`that Allergan relies upon for its unexpected results case should be denied.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`
`
`Allergan also asserts that Dr. Bloch’s analysis of Attar Exhibit B is
`
`“suspect” because it confirmed that Dr. Attar’s original testimony was correct and
`
`that she departed from the truth when she altered her testimony under the redirect
`
`questioning by Allergan’s attorney. Mot’n at 10. Again, Allergan attacks without
`
`justification Dr. Bloch’s ability to use a ruler. But Dr. Bloch testified without
`
`contradiction that he was able to produce “very accurate measurement[s]” with a
`
`resolution on the order of 0.005. EX2083, 43:15–19; 47:10–13. Dr. Bloch also
`
`testified that his conclusion that Dr. Attar used the lower conjunctiva, rather than
`
`the combination of the lower and upper, was “not debatable.” Id. at 39:1–40:17.
`
`The difference is plain to see simply by referring to Dr. Attar’s graph. Id. at 47:14–
`
`18 (“[S]he changed her testimony to indicate that difference would have been 0.29
`
`versus 0.32. That’s a large difference, there’s no question I could see that.”).
`
`Allergan’s attempt to exclude Dr. Bloch’s measurements of the PK graphs that
`
`Allergan relies upon for unexpected results should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner requests that Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Exclude Evidence be denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: July 27, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/ Steven W. Parmelee /
` Steven W. Parmelee
` Reg. No. 31,990
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that I caused to be served true and correct copies of the
`
`foregoing Petitioners’ Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`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.
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
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
