`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-011311
`Patent 8,648,048
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00585 and IPR2017-00600 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Patent Owner hereby objects as follows to the
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`admissibility of Petitioner’s evidence:
`
`
`
`EX. 1039: FRE 402/403/602/701/702/703/801/802. EX. 1039 includes opinions
`
`that are not admissible under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow
`
`Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dr. Calman was retained by Petitioner as a
`
`“technical expert to provide [his] independent analysis in these proceedings.” EX.
`
`1039, ¶ 7. Dr. Calman provides “putative conversions” to the Schirmer Tear Test
`
`(with anesthesia) scores reported in Figure 2 of the Sall reference (“Sall”) to
`
`generate “inferred raw STT scores” and uses these scores to conclude “no material
`
`clinical difference would be expected between the two CsA groups, as again the
`
`estimated raw values for the 0.05% and 0.1% CsA treatment groups at 6 months
`
`are only roughly half a millimeter apart.” See EX. 1039, ¶¶ 68-71. Dr. Calman’s
`
`analyses are inadmissible as they are not based on sufficient facts or data, are not
`
`the product of reliable principles and methods, and do not apply reliable principles
`
`and methods to the facts of the case. Dr. Calman admits his conversions are
`
`inferences and not “literal conversions” to actual raw Schirmer scores. See EX.
`
`1039, ¶ 68. Instead, Dr. Calman conducts his analysis by estimating raw Schirmer
`
`tear test values (mm) from the categorized Schirmer scores reported in Sall Figure
`
`2. Id. For example, Dr. Calman infers a Schirmer score of 4 corresponds to an
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`estimated raw value of 11 mm. See EX. 1039, ¶ 68. But the Sall reference
`
`specifically states that the mean categorized Schirmer value of 4 relates to patients
`
`with raw values of 11, 12, 13, or 14 mm/5 min. See EX. 1007, at page 635. Dr.
`
`Calman’s “opinions” as to whether a person of skill in the art viewing Sall Figure 2
`
`would conclude there is no clinically meaningful difference between the 0.05%
`
`and 0.10% CsA formulations should be excluded as inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`
`
`In addition to relying on his own improper analysis, Dr. Calman also relies
`
`on Dr. Bloch’s dubious analysis derived from “gleaning” the mean change from
`
`baseline values for each composition in Sall Figure 2 to the nearest hundredth
`
`decimal place. As discussed in more detail below, Dr. Bloch’s analysis on
`
`unsubstantiated values is improper and unreliable, as it is not based on sufficient
`
`facts or data, is not the product of reliable principles and methods, and does not
`
`apply reliable principles and methods to the facts of the case. Thus, Dr. Calman’s
`
`“opinions” which rely on Dr. Bloch’s improper analysis to conclude that Sall does
`
`not disclose any statistically significantly different results between the 0.05% and
`
`0.10% CsA formulations (EX. 1039, ¶¶ 67-71) should be excluded as inadmissible
`
`under FRE 702, as well as under FRE 801/802 as hearsay and FRE 602 for lack of
`
`personal knowledge.
`
`Additionally, EX. 1039 includes opinions that are untimely and outside the
`
`scope of a proper reply and therefore not admissible under FRE 402 or 403. 37
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b), governing these proceedings, states that “[a] reply may only
`
`respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id.
`
`at § 42.23(b). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide states that “[e]xamples of
`
`indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence
`
`necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of
`
`an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been
`
`presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756 at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioner chose not to file a declaration from a
`
`clinician regarding the clinical results in Sall with its Petition. EX. 1039 is a
`
`declaration by Dr. Calman, a clinician, submitted with Petitioner’s reply. Dr.
`
`Calman, for the first time, presents evidence that could have (and should have)
`
`been presented previously that Petitioner now relies on for a prima facie case of
`
`unpatentability. It should not be permitted on reply at this late date in the
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`EX. 1040: FRE 402/403/701/702/703. EX. 1040 includes opinions that are not
`
`admissible under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`
`509 U.S. 579 (1993). Dr. Bloch provides “statistical analyses for certain data
`
`reported in Stevenson, Sall Figures 1-2” and “Allergan’s animal PK
`
`[pharmacokinetic] studies testing cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsions as used by
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`Dr. Attar in her Exhibit B to her Declaration presented to the USPTO.” See EX.
`
`1040, ¶ 10. Dr. Bloch’s analyses are inadmissible as they are not based on
`
`sufficient facts or data, are not the product of reliable principles and methods, and
`
`do not apply reliable principles and methods to the facts of the case. Neither
`
`Stevenson nor Sall provide data tables of the raw values graphed in the articles.
`
`See EX. 1040, ¶ 26. In the absence of such data, Dr. Bloch conducts his analysis
`
`by allegedly “glean[ing] through precise measurements of the y-axis and bars
`
`within each bar graph.” Id. For example, from Figure 1 of Sall, which contains a
`
`y-axis that measures change in baseline in corneal staining to the tenth decimal
`
`place, Dr. Bloch “gleans” the mean change from baseline values for each
`
`composition tested to the hundredth decimal place, and conducts his analysis on
`
`these unsubstantiated values and improper analysis. See EX. 1040, ¶¶ 33, 35-38.
`
`Dr. Bloch’s analysis of Exhibit B of Dr. Attar’s Declaration is equally suspect.
`
`Despite Dr. Attar’s testimony that she combined the upper and lower conjunctiva
`
`data from the 98-074 study to compare against the same data from the 00-163
`
`study, Dr. Bloch nevertheless bases his analysis on the data from the lower
`
`conjunctiva in the 98-074 study. See EX. 1038, 167:8-169:24; EX. 1040, ¶¶ 65-68.
`
`After “simply magnifying the scale of Dr. Attar’s exhibit,” and drawing a set of
`
`rudimentary lines across the figure (which has a y axis with intervals of 0.5), Dr.
`
`Bloch goes on to conclude that Dr. Attar “did the wrong ‘thing’ (analysis) when
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`she created her Exhibit B,” because of a purported three-hundredth point
`
`difference in values (0.29 compared to 0.32) that he states is “clear” evidence that
`
`she used the incorrect data. EX. 1040, ¶ 68. Dr. Bloch’s methods are unreliable
`
`and unsubstantiated in light of Dr. Attar’s testimony. Therefore, his “opinions” as
`
`to whether Stevenson, Sall or Exhibit B of Dr. Attar’s Declaration disclose any
`
`statistically significantly different results between the 0.05% and 0.10% CsA
`
`formulations should be excluded as inadmissible under FRE 702.
`
`Additionally, EX. 1040 includes opinions that are untimely and outside the
`
`scope of a proper reply and therefore not admissible under FRE 402 or 403. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b), governing these proceedings, states that “[a] reply may only
`
`respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id.
`
`at § 42.23(b). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide states that “[e]xamples of
`
`indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence
`
`necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of
`
`an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been
`
`presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756 at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioner chose not to file a declaration from a
`
`statistician regarding the clinical results in Sall with its Petition. EX. 1040 is a
`
`declaration by Dr. Bloch submitted with Petitioner’s reply. Dr. Bloch, for the first
`
`time, presents evidence that Petitioner could have (and should have) presented in
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`its opening statement that Petitioner relies on for a prima facie case of
`
`unpatentability. It should not be permitted on reply at this late date in the
`
`proceedings.
`
`
`
`EX. 1041: FRE 402/403. EX. 1041 includes opinions that are untimely and
`
`outside the scope of a proper reply and therefore not admissible under FRE 402 or
`
`403. Mr. Hofmann provides analyses of “certain claimed objective indicia of
`
`nonobviousness, specifically commercial success and nexus.” EX. 1041, ¶ 9. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.23(b), governing these proceedings, states that “[a] reply may only
`
`respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id.
`
`at § 42.23(b). The Office Patent Trial Practice Guide states that “[e]xamples of
`
`indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence
`
`necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of
`
`an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been
`
`presented in a prior filing.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756 at 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Petitioner chose not to file a declaration
`
`regarding these objective indicia of non-obviousness with its Petition. EX. 1041 is
`
`a declaration by Mr. Hofmann submitted with Petitioner’s reply. Mr. Hofmann,
`
`for the first time, presents evidence that Petitioner could have presented in its
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`opening statement that Petitioner relies on for a prima facie case of unpatentability.
`
`It should not be permitted on reply at this late date in the proceedings.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan
`Reg. No. 33,814
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 10, 2017
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on July 10, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner Allergan,
`
`Inc.’s Objections to Evidence was provided via electronic service, to the Petitioner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`Wendy L. Devine
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`wdevine@wsgr.com
`
`
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk
`Azy S. Kokabi
`Travis B. Ribar
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`akokabi@sughrue.com
`tribar@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01131
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP5
`
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Mark D. Schuman
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`IPRCyclosporine@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`