`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-011321
`Patent 9,248,191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00586 and IPR2017-00601 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`I. Allergan’s Motion Satisfies the Board’s Rules
`
`
`
`Mylan criticizes Allergan’s motion because Allergan failed to identify
`
`specific paragraphs in Mylan’s three new expert declarations that Allergan seeks to
`
`exclude. Allergan seeks to exclude each declaration in its entirety. Allergan’s
`
`motion, therefore, is compliant.
`
`II. Mylan’s Reply Is Really a New Petition
`
`
`
`Mylan changed its theory of unpatentability between its petition and its
`
`reply. In its petition, Mylan and its sole declarant, Dr. Amiji, argued that Sall
`
`demonstrated the superiority of the 0.05% CsA emulsion. Petition, pp. 8, 50; EX.
`
`1002, ¶¶ 107-108. Mylan had to make these arguments in order to support its
`
`theory of obviousness based on Ding ’979 and Sall—specifically, that a POSA
`
`would have selected a 0.05% CsA emulsion based upon Sall.
`
`In its owner’s response, Allergan agreed that Sall demonstrated the
`
`superiority of the 0.05% CsA emulsion particularly with respect to tear production,
`
`as measured by the Schirmer Tear Test (“STT”) with anesthesia. As Allergan
`
`noted, the real issue was how much castor oil a POSA would have combined with
`
`the 0.05% CsA, since Sall is silent as to the amount of castor oil used with the
`
`0.05% CsA. Allergan proved that based upon thermodynamic principles, and
`
`confirmed by bioavailability studies, a POSA would not have selected 1.25%
`
`castor oil but, in fact, would have chosen far less. Patent Owner Response, pp. 24-
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`28. Allergan established that a POSA would have expected that increasing the
`
`amount of castor oil would have caused less CsA to reach the lacrimal glands
`
`relative to an emulsion containing 0.1% CsA and 1.25% castor oil. Id. In this
`
`context, the fact that an emulsion having 0.05% CsA/1.25% castor oil was better at
`
`increasing tear production than an emulsion having 0.1% CsA/1.25% castor oil
`
`was surprising and unexpected. As to Mylan’s argument that increasing castor oil
`
`had beneficial effects, Allergan proved, with the aid of the STT with anesthesia
`
`data shown in Sall Fig. 2, that the castor oil vehicle alone decreased tear
`
`production and was worse than either CsA-containing emulsion. Id. at 30. Thus,
`
`selecting 1.25% castor oil was not a matter of optimizing castor oil concentration,
`
`as the Board suggested in its Institution Decision. Institution Decision, p. 21.
`
`Rather, Sall shows that the 0.05% CsA/1.25% castor oil emulsion is critical to
`
`increasing tear production and works differently than the 0.1% CsA/1.25% castor
`
`oil emulsion (the closest prior art).
`
`With the aid of three new declarants, Mylan now turns its back on Sall and
`
`tries to argue that Sall shows no real difference between the 0.05% and 0.1% CsA
`
`emulsions. Notably absent is any new testimony from Dr. Amiji. Mylan tries to
`
`argue that it criticized Sall’s data all along. Opposition, pp. 2-4. However,
`
`Mylan’s citations to “data” in its Opposition reveal that it criticized the data in Dr.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`Schiffman’s declaration, and used Sall as a reliable, robust source of data to
`
`support its criticism. Mylan did not criticize Sall’s data.
`
`Allergan’s Response did not rely on Dr. Schiffman’s data—it relied on Sall.
`
`Having seen the Response, Mylan is simply trying to re-write its original petition.
`
`III. Drs. Bloch and Calman’s Methodology Is Scientifically Unsound and
`Unreliable
`
`To perform his “statistical” analysis, Dr. Bloch relied on numbers that he
`
`
`
`“gleaned” from Sall Fig. 2 using a ruler and magnifying glass. EX. 1040 at ¶¶ 26,
`
`44; EX. 2083 at 40:4-41:4. Dr. Calman attempted to “infer” raw Schirmer scores
`
`from the categorized Schirmer scores disclosed in Sall. EX. 1039 at ¶ 68. Neither
`
`is scientifically sound, as Dr. Calman admitted. EX. 2082 at 106:23-107:21.
`
`Mylan attempts to justify their unscientific methods by complaining that
`
`Allergan withheld the underlying data. But Mylan never requested raw data for the
`
`purpose of attacking the Phase 3 clinical data reported in Sall—a peer-reviewed
`
`paper that included error bars and p-values. Mylan never established any reason to
`
`doubt the data presented in Sall, especially since Mylan’s petition and its original
`
`expert, Dr. Amiji, relied upon Sall. Mylan sought the raw data for the purpose of
`
`challenging the data Dr. Schiffman presented to the Patent Office. See Paper No.
`
`23. When Allergan confirmed that its Response did not rely on Dr. Schiffman’s
`
`figures but instead relied solely on the data and analysis presented in Sall, the
`
`Board denied Mylan’s request for the raw data. See Paper No. 28.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`Based upon the reasons Mylan presented in its motion for additional
`
`discovery, Mylan was never entitled to the raw STT data underlying Sall Fig. 2.
`
`Moreover, Mylan’s real, albeit unstated, objective in seeking the raw data to
`
`challenge Sall Fig. 2 underscores that Mylan’s statistical challenge is an entirely
`
`new argument supported by new evidence presented for the first time in its reply.
`
`IV. Allergan Is Unable to Offer Its Own Rebuttal Declarations
`
`
`
`The Board authorized Allergan to file a surreply. It did not authorize
`
`Allergan to file supporting declarations. Nevertheless, the positions Mylan
`
`continues to advance make clear that without the ability to offer declarations from
`
`its own biostatistician and clinician, Allergan lacks a meaningful opportunity to
`
`respond to Mylan’s new arguments and evidence. Contrary to Mylan’s arguments
`
`in its Opposition, Allergan’s witnesses (Drs. Sheppard and Loftsson) never
`
`confirmed Dr. Bloch and Dr. Calman’s analyses. How could they have confirmed
`
`analyses that Mylan did not present until after Drs. Sheppard and Loftsson had
`
`submitted their declarations? As to Mylan’s argument that neither of Allergan’s
`
`witnesses performed a statistical analysis, this is true—because neither Dr.
`
`Sheppard nor Dr. Loftsson is a biostatistician and Mylan’s Petition embraced,
`
`rather than attacked, Sall’s data and statistical analysis.
`
`
`
`Allergan now specifically requests leave to file declarations from its own
`
`biostatistician and clinician in support of its surreply. The biostatistician would
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`testify inter alia that based upon Sall and FDA’s Medical Review, the 0.05%
`
`CsA/1.25% castor oil formulation was statistically significantly better than both the
`
`0.1% CsA/1.25% castor oil formulation and vehicle in increasing tear production
`
`in clinically relevant patient populations, and that Allergan’s PK studies show a
`
`statistically significant difference in bioavailability between the two formulations.
`
`The clinician would testify inter alia that the Phase 3 results were clinically
`
`significant for increasing tear production in the treatment of dry eye patients, and
`
`the Kaswan and Oellerich references do not teach the level of CsA in the ocular
`
`tissues necessary to cause a clinically significant increase in tear production.
`
`
`
`In seeking leave, Allergan recognizes that Mylan may wish to depose each
`
`of Allergan’s rebuttal declarants and that the depositions may require adjusting the
`
`current scheduling order. Given the importance of ensuring that both parties have
`
`a full and fair opportunity to present their respective arguments, Allergan does not
`
`object to adjusting the schedule, including extending Due Date 7 and the final
`
`written decision deadline. With respect to the latter, Allergan notes that because
`
`the current proceeding is a joined proceeding, the Board has the option of
`
`extending the final written decision deadline. See 35 U.S.C. 316(a)(11).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`Michael J. Kane, Reg. No. 39,722
`Attorneys for Allergan, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:/August 3, 2017/
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2509
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on August 3, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner Allergan,
`
`Inc.’s Reply to Opposition to Motion to Exclude 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
`sblackston@sughrue.com
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01132
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP6
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`