`
`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-
`
`